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 2117

post #63481 of 70896

Perhaps this question is better asked in the REW thread but since it's Audyssey related and linked to the guide posted at HTS, I thought I would ask it here.  Based on the research done in the guide provided by Wayne Meyers (AudiocRaver over at HTS) wrt mic positions, is it correct to suppose that one could predetermine the best clustering of mic positions based on FR (and Waterfall if you observe the benefits of Audyssey in the time domain as a result of improved response in the frequency domain...which I have observed in my room) curves of the PLP for each seating position in your room?  If I understood the HTS guide correctly, the assumption is that if you see "smaller" variations from seat to seat in your room then a larger cluster size could improve the overall SQ from seat to seat.  OTOH, if you observe very large variations from seat to seat, then the maximum benefit of Audyssey might be to cluster your measurements more closely around the MLP to better improve the SQ at this one location?  Of course, I know this doesn't consider one's preference for a single seat vs. multiple seat SQ improvement but if you have a better chance to greatly improve one seat vs. a marginal improvement (or even detriment) to other seats then wouldn't this be preferred?  I'm only asking because I've recently changed my seating configuration and now have the ability to take measurements at each seat's PLP using REW and I need to do a fresh calibration soon.  Of course, I could just try each cluster to see which one measures better at the MLP as well as the other seats but I found it interesting if possible to determine which cluster might be a better starting point and then work backwards (i.e. 12 in cluster vs. 6 in cluster vs. 3 in cluster etc).  Since I don't have a high confidence for my own subjective SQ ranking due to the fact that I've only ever listened in a highly reflective, untreated room before, I'd prefer to rely on what I can measure against what other more experienced members refer to as better SQ.

post #63482 of 70896
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

TFM,

Monoprice RCA to XLR are notorious for being improperly wired. I had two pairs that got me absolutely NO sound, and then one that created a crazy bad buzz as well. My suggestion is try another RCA/XLR cable, or even better, try the HOSA adapters that just snap into the XLR input on your mackie and immediately turn it into an RCA plug biggrin.gif I use these almost exclusively now.

Everyone else, I apologize for my abscence as I was on a nice family vacation biggrin.gif I am only two pages left to catch up and I am back in the game smile.gif
post #63483 of 70896
Cleared the post so as to not "poke the bear..." Now that I am all caught up I feel much better too biggrin.gif
Edited by beastaudio - 7/9/13 at 2:01pm
post #63484 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

Perhaps this question is better asked in the REW thread but since it's Audyssey related and linked to the guide posted at HTS, I thought I would ask it here.  Based on the research done in the guide provided by Wayne Meyers (AudiocRaver over at HTS) wrt mic positions, is it correct to suppose that one could predetermine the best clustering of mic positions based on FR (and Waterfall if you observe the benefits of Audyssey in the time domain as a result of improved response in the frequency domain...which I have observed in my room) curves of the PLP for each seating position in your room?  If I understood the HTS guide correctly, the assumption is that if you see "smaller" variations from seat to seat in your room then a larger cluster size could improve the overall SQ from seat to seat.  OTOH, if you observe very large variations from seat to seat, then the maximum benefit of Audyssey might be to cluster your measurements more closely around the MLP to better improve the SQ at this one location?  Of course, I know this doesn't consider one's preference for a single seat vs. multiple seat SQ improvement but if you have a better chance to greatly improve one seat vs. a marginal improvement (or even detriment) to other seats then wouldn't this be preferred?  I'm only asking because I've recently changed my seating configuration and now have the ability to take measurements at each seat's PLP using REW and I need to do a fresh calibration soon.  Of course, I could just try each cluster to see which one measures better at the MLP as well as the other seats but I found it interesting if possible to determine which cluster might be a better starting point and then work backwards (i.e. 12 in cluster vs. 6 in cluster vs. 3 in cluster etc).  Since I don't have a high confidence for my own subjective SQ ranking due to the fact that I've only ever listened in a highly reflective, untreated room before, I'd prefer to rely on what I can measure against what other more experienced members refer to as better SQ.

 

I think you, and the author of the Audyssey Guide on HTS, are both way over-thinking the importance of mic placements.  If you were to ask Chris K. over on Audyssey Facebook, I'll wager that you get the same answer. 

 

The only significant difference that I have heard among regular contributors here on this thread, is what to do when the MLP is not exactly in the center of the left/right layout.  For example, Keith has two chairs that straddle the center line. I am of the opinion (as well as the HTS author), that the mic should still be placed on the center line.  Keith, on the other hand (I hope I say this right) feels that the mic should still be placed in the center of the seat he is sitting in, since he is the primary listener.  In order to avoid this conundrum, I have taken the easy way out and placed my MLP exactly in the center.

 

Otherwise, the next significant controversy is "tight" vs. "traditional" placements, and many of us don't see a big difference.

post #63485 of 70896
BIRDS!

I have added a second sub to my listening room, but I am unable to run the calibration for the sub (ASVS AS-eq1) and the rest of my system (MultiEQ XT) because sparrows have nested under my window air conditioner and are making a hell of a noise from 5 a.m. until I have to go to sleep. I don't think this will sit well with the Audyssey "brain." A few more weeks and they'll be gone...
post #63486 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

Perhaps this question is better asked in the REW thread but since it's Audyssey related and linked to the guide posted at HTS, I thought I would ask it here.  Based on the research done in the guide provided by Wayne Meyers (AudiocRaver over at HTS) wrt mic positions, is it correct to suppose that one could predetermine the best clustering of mic positions based on FR (and Waterfall if you observe the benefits of Audyssey in the time domain as a result of improved response in the frequency domain...which I have observed in my room) curves of the PLP for each seating position in your room?  If I understood the HTS guide correctly, the assumption is that if you see "smaller" variations from seat to seat in your room then a larger cluster size could improve the overall SQ from seat to seat.  OTOH, if you observe very large variations from seat to seat, then the maximum benefit of Audyssey might be to cluster your measurements more closely around the MLP to better improve the SQ at this one location?  Of course, I know this doesn't consider one's preference for a single seat vs. multiple seat SQ improvement but if you have a better chance to greatly improve one seat vs. a marginal improvement (or even detriment) to other seats then wouldn't this be preferred?  I'm only asking because I've recently changed my seating configuration and now have the ability to take measurements at each seat's PLP using REW and I need to do a fresh calibration soon.  Of course, I could just try each cluster to see which one measures better at the MLP as well as the other seats but I found it interesting if possible to determine which cluster might be a better starting point and then work backwards (i.e. 12 in cluster vs. 6 in cluster vs. 3 in cluster etc).  Since I don't have a high confidence for my own subjective SQ ranking due to the fact that I've only ever listened in a highly reflective, untreated room before, I'd prefer to rely on what I can measure against what other more experienced members refer to as better SQ.

 

I think you, and the author of the Audyssey Guide on HTS, are both way over-thinking the importance of mic placements.  If you were to ask Chris K. over on Audyssey Facebook, I'll wager that you get the same answer. 

 

The only significant difference that I have heard among regular contributors here on this thread, is what to do when the MLP is not exactly in the center of the left/right layout.  For example, Keith has two chairs that straddle the center line. I am of the opinion (as well as the HTS author), that the mic should still be placed on the center line.  Keith, on the other hand (I hope I say this right) feels that the mic should still be placed in the center of the seat he is sitting in, since he is the primary listener.  In order to avoid this conundrum, I have taken the easy way out and placed my MLP exactly in the center.

 

Otherwise, the next significant controversy is "tight" vs. "traditional" placements, and many of us don't see a big difference.

 

I agree with you, Jerry.

 

You have it right wrt to my off-centre MLP. I'd love it to be central but it cannot be - not if I want two seats anyway. You are right that I put the mic in the centre of my chair, where my head would be, for the first position. This seems so right to me that I would be interested in why you would do it differently if you had my room configuration. I am thinking that the delays for the speakers are extremely important for imaging clarity and if I put the mic centrally, then my head would not be in the place from where the delays had been measured. This would surely result in less well-defined imaging do you not think?

 

Initially I did use to put the mic centrally for the No 1 measurement. But when listening, I noticed that the sound only really sounded 'right' if I leaned to my left - IOW towards where the mic had been positioned for No 1. When I moved back to the right (to sit normally) the imaging seemed to collapse to some extent. Now all this was a long time ago - even before I had any treatments IIRC, so it is perhaps worth trying again. But what would your reasoning be as to why a central location would be your preference, if you cannot sit at that location?

 

EDIT: Of course, doing it my way probably really screws things up for Seat 2, but I don't care at all about that seat remember.

post #63487 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post


Are you talking about this question: "Is it a short coming of Audyssey that it down samples high res or can Audyssey XT32 pass high res?"

I believe it has been reported that Audyssey indeed down-samples Hi-Res content.

I do not believe that is a fair statement.  Audyssey does not require the downsampling.  It is the limited DSP capacity of the AVR/prepro that requires it.  If the manufacturer was willing to double or quadruple the DSP power, no downsampling would be required.  It is simply a matter of money.

post #63488 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Cleared the post so as to not "poke the bear..." Now that I am all caught up I feel much better too biggrin.gif

Don't relax, I still have your original post in mailbox biggrin.gif
post #63489 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by IgorZep View Post

Don't relax, I still have your original post in mailbox biggrin.gif

No biggie, you should all just be glad I can't multi-quote at work or I would have responded to close to 100 different posts if so biggrin.gif It would have been a novel smile.gif
post #63490 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

If I understood the HTS guide correctly, the assumption is that if you see "smaller" variations from seat to seat in your room then a larger cluster size could improve the overall SQ from seat to seat.
If variations are already small from seat to seat (i.e., most seats sound similar), then improving the response in the main seat will improve the sound in those other seats as well. If you've maximized consistency across your seating area, does it really matter whether your mic pattern is wide or narrow?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

OTOH, if you observe very large variations from seat to seat, then the maximum benefit of Audyssey might be to cluster your measurements more closely around the MLP to better improve the SQ at this one location?
If you already have relatively smooth response in your main seat, do you really want Audyssey noticing a peak in other seats and attempting to pull it down, thereby creating a dip in the main seat that wasn't there to begin with? Or worse, Audyssey's fuzzy logic sees the same frequency peaking and dipping in different measurements and takes it off the list of problems it can fix. With that much seat to seat inconsistency, better to keep the mic pattern tight, or at least limited to an area where measurements will be similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

Of course, I know this doesn't consider one's preference for a single seat vs. multiple seat SQ improvement but if you have a better chance to greatly improve one seat vs. a marginal improvement (or even detriment) to other seats then wouldn't this be preferred?
Like you said, depends on preference and priorities. Mine happens to be the opposite of what you described: I'd be willing to give up a marginal improvement in the main listening seat in order to greatly improve other seats (e.g., cross toeing the L/R speakers). But I completely understand why others would do the reverse.

Also, interesting coincidence that this discussion about this particular aspect of the HT Shack Audyssey guide comes on the heels of a discussion in this very Audyssey thread about improving seat-to-seat consistency. It should be apparent at this point that minimizing spatial variance is one of the most helpful things users can do to improve the results of Audyssey (or any multi-point room correction system).
post #63491 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I agree with you, Jerry.

But when listening, I noticed that the sound only really sounded 'right' if I leaned to my left

EDIT: Of course, doing it my way probably really screws things up for Seat 2, but I don't care at all about that seat remember.

Its ok if you lean a bit left. We can't all be perfect centrists. biggrin.gif
post #63492 of 70896

Question to multisub enthusiasts.  How might a third sub add to SQ in my room? 

I have an opportunity to add a DD15 at a huge discount (MSRP was around $4K for this recently discontinued but very well reviewed sub) so this prompts my seeking your advice.   My intent is not to open up discussion about brands of subs but to expand the recent discussion about multiple sub placement irt optimizing placement and smoothing bass prior to running Audyssey. 

By way of background, I started with one DD10, attracted to the power, accuracy and built-in SMS measurement/EQ system and a great discount deal.  But I have 3400 cu ft of space with two door-sized openings that don't close.  So a second DD10 deal yielded more bass "slam" as well as helping to even out some of the bass lumpiness in this untreated space.  A cool feature of the DD10s is the customizable presets controlled  via remote control.  The digitally controlled servo allows custom presets to optimize music, action movie, etc.  I even use a custom preset to compensate for -10dB low SACD .1 channel bass (don’t ask).

My room has a suspended wood floor so when in action movie mode the subs shake the floor pretty impressively though they may be a bit weak on pressurizing the room.  In music mode, bass and kick drum are clean and punchy with a bit of kick when listening at a healthy level to well-recorded stuff like Steely Dan.  Again, not the shake yer guts "liver quiver" visceral feel I get standing out in front of my electric bass instrument amp with its 15" JBL speaker, or the solid punch of a live kick drum 8' away. 

As recently posted, the subs are in opposite front and back midwall placement, though I'll try them at opposite 1/4 width points.  But what about adding a mismatched, way more powerful third sub?  I’ve been told by Velo CS that though the amp is the same the DD15 moves so much air that it is equivalent to 3 or 4 DD10s-it’s rated to 15-120Hz +/- 3 dB) compared to the DD10 18-120.

 

Here's some specific questions-and I am willing to move this to a more appropriate thread if so directed. Should I expect a lot more bass slam? Smoother/ punchier bass?  Should I place it in a third location and if so, where?  If so, how about gain-matching ? Or stack two tens acting as one sub on one wall opposite the 15? Combing the tens  would perhaps make gain-matching easier? Other suggestions?

post #63493 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Might be boundry cancellations (reflections off the front wall combine out-of-phase with the direct sound from the speakers and create dips in the frequency response).

Any absorbtion on your front wall? Are the fronts of your L/C/R speakers around one foot (give or take a few inches) from the front wall?

I have 2 24"x24"x3" absorbers on each side wall for early reflections, As well as 1 24"x48"x6" bass trap on each side wall, on the front I have 2 bass traps of the same dimension laying down along the floor, so they sit 24" tall and 48"wide. The bass traps I kinda just put them where I could fit them. No science involved, I just stuck them there and hoped for the best.

It goes Wall|Speaker | Bass trap | Center speaker| Bass trap |Speaker|Wall

The speakers are about 1 foot inward from the side walls and 1 foot away from the front wall. These speakers are ported at the rear, so the port is firing right into the corner. Let me guess, Worst possible location ? biggrin.gif

Perhaps when I do my false wall, I should consider a THX Baffle wall to place the speakers on...

Question about the rear bar-room area that it opens up to... Being some 38' away from the from the front wall, what effects does the rear wall play in acoustics of the theater area ? If I stand at the rear wall, the bass is heavy, even at 27' or so from the subs. Actually, everywhere in the basement and even upstairs is more boomy than the theater room. It's a shame I couldn't have that heavy bass area in the theater room, turn down the gains and have extra headroom...
post #63494 of 70896
The icing has led me to the cake...

Prior to acquiring a receiver with Audyssey xt32, and using this thread as a resource, I little thought to proper speaker placement, and wall treatments. I have heard reference to "The Harman Paper." Is this a good beginning for learning about good speaker placement and modes? If so, a link would be greatly appreciated. I know that some of the regular contributors to this thread REALLY know this area well, but I would like to digest the speaker placement equivalent to The Audyssey FAQ (if there is such a thing) so I can ask better questions.

I have read that in a well-designed room, with appropriate care taken for physical issues, Audyssey is the icing on the cake. I guess I am starting this process a little backward, but I am happy to be starting it.

My apologies for this being a bit OT, but given what I have read here, I greatly prefer this thread's thoughts.

Thank you.

Just Nick
post #63495 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Nick View Post

I have heard reference to "The Harman Paper." Is this a good beginning for learning about good speaker placement and modes? If so, a link would be greatly appreciated.


http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Innovation/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt3.pdf
post #63496 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanc View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Any absorbtion on your front wall?

Are the fronts of your L/C/R speakers around one foot (give or take a few inches) from the front wall?
...on the front I have 2 bass traps of the same dimension laying down along the floor, so they sit 24" tall and 48"wide.

The speakers are about 1 foot inward from the side walls and 1 foot away from the front wall.
OK, since the side wall reflections are being absorbed, I'm guessing that those dips are due to reflections off the front wall. One reason for my guess is because it is so common: people put speakers at the front wall, drivers are roughly a foot away, cancellations are around 300Hz range. Same thing happened in the REW thread. The other reason for my guess is because it is not part of a repeating pattern, otherwise I would have guessed it was a modal problem.

One way of addressing this is to move your speakers at least 3.5 feet away from the front wall to drive the cancellation dip below 80Hz. Let me guess: that ain't gonna happen. The other (more sane) option is to absorb those reflections off the front wall so that they can't reflect back and combine with the direct sound to create cancellation dips. I don't know if you can do this either, considering your screen might be where the absorbers need to go (behind and inward of the speakers). If you have an acoustically transparent screen, then you can build a same-sized frame behind it that was 4" deep and load it up with rigid fibreglass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanc View Post

If I stand at the rear wall, the bass is heavy, even at 27' or so from the subs.
That's normal, since bass is louder at boundries. If you look at some of the mode calculator charts posted in this thread, you'll notice that different standing waves peak & dip at different locations within the room. Except at the walls, where they all peak, always.
post #63497 of 70896
Guys should XT32 be used before or after EQing my Velodyne subs with my SMS-1?
http://velodyne.com/sms-1-digitalmanagement-system.html
post #63498 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Guys should XT32 be used before or after EQing my Velodyne subs with my SMS-1?
http://velodyne.com/sms-1-digitalmanagement-system.html

In the Audyssey FAQ:


f)9. What's the best way to set up Audyssey when also using Velodyne's SMS-1 room EQ system?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/51760_20#user_f9
post #63499 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I think that if you use both in this way they tend to cancel each other out, so to speak as they each try to get to their own target curve. So if you run, say the AM first and then XT32 second, XT32 will undo what the AM might have done.

The only way to use two forms of EQ like this is, IMO, to run Audyssey and then add the other 'on top' without further automated EQ-ing. You can do this with PEQ for example, where you can run Audyssey, get the best result it can deliver and then shape the curve a little more to taste if you wish with a filter or two. If you use the PEQ first, Audyssey will try to undo what you did with the PEQ filters. In all cases, measuring equipment is essential.

I do something vaguely similar with my Submersives. Submersives have two 'programs'. Pgm2 applies an approx 3db boost from about 30Hz down. I calibrate with Audyssey in Pgm1 and then switch the Submersives to Pgm2 afterwards, to get that 3dB low-end boost. If I did it the other way around, calibrating in Pgm2 mode, Audyssey would just flatten the 3dB boost and it would be pointless therefore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

In the Audyssey FAQ:


f)9. What's the best way to set up Audyssey when also using Velodyne's SMS-1 room EQ system?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/795421/official-audyssey-thread-faq-in-post-1/51760_20#user_f9
It looks like the last step is to do eq on the dedicated bass EQ device such as antimode, am I correct?
How about this? Run Antimode, run Audyssey, run Antimode again ?
post #63500 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post


It looks like the last step is to do eq on the dedicated bass EQ device such as antimode, am I correct?
How about this? Run Antimode, run Audyssey, run Antimode again ?

I personally do not like the idea of running two EQ systems on top of each other. I really do not see what advantage it might have. And, be prepared for a much larger sub distance being calculated that way than the physical measurement, though there should be no harm in that. My JL fathom has a limited single mode EQ built in. I have felt that the results were better with it bypassed.
post #63501 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post

It looks like the last step is to do eq on the dedicated bass EQ device such as antimode, am I correct?
How about this? Run Antimode, run Audyssey, run Antimode again ?

 

I can't see the point of running two automated EQ systems. All that will happen is that whichever one you run second will try to undo whatever the one you ran first did, according to the target curve they are programmed to deliver. There may be some benefit in running Audyssey and then running some manual PEQ afterwards, to fix things Audyssey left alone, but that requires measuring gear and an understanding of how to use it and how to use PEQ appropriately. 

 

For example, if Auto-EQ 1 was programmed for a curve that boosted the bass gently by 5dB from 80Hz to 20Hz and AutoEQ2 was designed to produce a flat curve from 80Hz to 20Hz, running 2 second would flatten the curve that 1 just delivered. Conversely, if you ran 2 first and then 1, the latter would undo the work that 3 had done in delivering a flat response. This is a simplification but you can see what I am getting at I think.

 

If you want exceptional control over the bass frequency EQ, then the AntiMode 2.0 Dual Core seems like a terrific tool as it allows you to set House Curves and/or to change the curve after EQ-ing, something that neither XT32 no Audyssey Pro allows. (Pro does have a very limited form of curve adjustment). The AntiMode 2.0 Dual Core allows you to set up to 49 different 'standard' curves, choosing both tilt and lift, which is fabulously flexible. But if you use the AntiMode to set a curve to your taste and then run Audyssey, it will do its best to flatten that curve to conform with the 'Audyssey Curve'.

post #63502 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by RapalloAV View Post

Guys should XT32 be used before or after EQing my Velodyne subs with my SMS-1?
http://velodyne.com/sms-1-digitalmanagement-system.html

Some of this advice may be too elementary for you but based on my experience with my Velodyne subs' built-in SMS EQ, I'd recommend the thing to do first is to disable the subs' EQ and get all crossovers, etc out of the way.  Then, using a measurement system with no smoothing , measure the subs firing together at and around MLP. (Velo subs built-in SMS inexplicably has something like 1/3 or 1/5 smoothing on the display graphs so does not have the resolution desired- I don't know about the free-standing unit) Do a measured sub crawl if possible to find best placement, using room dimensions to guide you. For ex., as has been recently discussed, opposite 1/4 wall placements might be a good start.  If I have to chose between peaks and valleys, I try for the least deep valleys. The thing is to use unsmoothed real time measurements.

Once the subs are in place, run Audyssey. 

Then measure again. 

If the FR could use a bit more tweaking, you have the capability within the subs to manually use the PEQ judiciously as you measure in real time. Then you do not run Audyssey again. 

I skipped the very first step that some recommend of gain-matching the subs as I've never tried it. 

I also did not mention the very last step of measuring subs and CC, subs and FR/L together and using distance tweaks to smooth the "splice", as I've not tried that either.


Edited by SoundofMind - 7/10/13 at 7:03am
post #63503 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post

The only significant difference that I have heard among regular contributors here on this thread, is what to do when the MLP is not exactly in the center of the left/right layout.  For example, Keith has two chairs that straddle the center line. I am of the opinion (as well as the HTS author), that the mic should still be placed on the center line.  Keith, on the other hand (I hope I say this right) feels that the mic should still be placed in the center of the seat he is sitting in, since he is the primary listener.  In order to avoid this conundrum, I have taken the easy way out and placed my MLP exactly in the center.

 

Otherwise, the next significant controversy is "tight" vs. "traditional" placements, and many of us don't see a big difference.

 

Thanks Jerry.  The bolded/italicized part was exactly what I was wondering about and you've answered it.  Much appreciated.

post #63504 of 70896
An argument in favor of applying more than one automated EQ device assumes that both devices have limited computing resources and might not be able to eliminate all of the problems. The EQ device that's run second then has fewer issues to compensate for than if it were the only EQ in use. Potentially the final result could be more accurate than either EQ run alone.

Of course, if both devices have more than enough resources available, this argument is no longer valid. My guess would be that both MultEQ and MultEQ XT could be considered "resource starved" when compared to MultEQ XT32 and thus could benefit from another device helping out. Systems with MultEQ XT32 seem to have more than enough resources available to do the job on their own. Comments above seem to indicate that the current generation of AntiMode also has enough resources.
post #63505 of 70896
So I have XT32 and am passively looking for a sub. It appears that based on the last few posts I should skip looking for a sub with an EQ because you guys are saying I should disable it? I think I read someplace else where people recommended to run the sub EQ first and then XT32. But if you guys don't think that's worth it, one could save some coin by getting either a passive sub or "basic" active sub.
post #63506 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

An argument in favor of applying more than one automated EQ device assumes that both devices have limited computing resources and might not be able to eliminate all of the problems. The EQ device that's run second then has fewer issues to compensate for than if it were the only EQ in use. Potentially the final result could be more accurate than either EQ run alone.

Of course, if both devices have more than enough resources available, this argument is no longer valid. My guess would be that both MultEQ and MultEQ XT could be considered "resource starved" when compared to MultEQ XT32 and thus could benefit from another device helping out. Systems with MultEQ XT32 seem to have more than enough resources available to do the job on their own. Comments above seem to indicate that the current generation of AntiMode also has enough resources.

yes, this is what i've read before. Let the sub get the "crude" stuff out of the way and now use XT32 to make it really "nice".
post #63507 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

If I understood the HTS guide correctly, the assumption is that if you see "smaller" variations from seat to seat in your room then a larger cluster size could improve the overall SQ from seat to seat.
If variations are already small from seat to seat (i.e., most seats sound similar), then improving the response in the main seat will improve the sound in those other seats as well. If you've maximized consistency across your seating area, does it really matter whether your mic pattern is wide or narrow?

It's a valid question and one that I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer.  However, your logic (as always) seems reasonable to me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

OTOH, if you observe very large variations from seat to seat, then the maximum benefit of Audyssey might be to cluster your measurements more closely around the MLP to better improve the SQ at this one location?
If you already have relatively smooth response in your main seat, do you really want Audyssey noticing a peak in other seats and attempting to pull it down, thereby creating a dip in the main seat that wasn't there to begin with? Or worse, Audyssey's fuzzy logic sees the same frequency peaking and dipping in different measurements and takes it off the list of problems it can fix. With that much seat to seat inconsistency, better to keep the mic pattern tight, or at least limited to an area where measurements will be similar.

 I think we're saying the same thing aren't we?  It would seem to me that you're an advocate of a tight cluster regardless of the room response or have I misunderstood?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

Of course, I know this doesn't consider one's preference for a single seat vs. multiple seat SQ improvement but if you have a better chance to greatly improve one seat vs. a marginal improvement (or even detriment) to other seats then wouldn't this be preferred?
Like you said, depends on preference and priorities. Mine happens to be the opposite of what you described: I'd be willing to give up a marginal improvement in the main listening seat in order to greatly improve other seats (e.g., cross toeing the L/R speakers). But I completely understand why others would do the reverse.

Also, interesting coincidence that this discussion about this particular aspect of the HT Shack Audyssey guide comes on the heels of a discussion in this very Audyssey thread about improving seat-to-seat consistency. It should be apparent at this point that minimizing spatial variance is one of the most helpful things users can do to improve the results of Audyssey (or any multi-point room correction system).

Agreed and this is why I want to take some measurements in my other seating locations so I at least understand what is going on.  Until now, I've only been looking out for numero uno! biggrin.gif

post #63508 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I can't see the point of running two automated EQ systems.
Nobody wishes that but we don't have a choice.
How about this: Configure speaker layout/config in AVR without subwoofer...run Audyssey (with subwoofer not detected)...enable subwoofer in speaker config after Audyssey...run external subwoofer EQ device like Antimode. Will this even work? (mains eq by Audyssey, sub eq by Antimode)?
post #63509 of 70896
Hey all!

Been following all 2,000+ pages of this thread since buying a Denon 2311CI with Audyssey. You guys are awesome - knowledgable, helpful, and very entertaining!!

Just my two cents: After having read through the HTS Audyssey guide, I was wondering why mic placements for l-shape sectional furniture was not addressed. They seem to have covered everything else, unless of course I missed it. smile.gif

Anyone have deviations from the normal mic positions with sectional seating?
post #63510 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylinestar View Post


Nobody wishes that but we don't have a choice.
How about this: Configure speaker layout/config in AVR without subwoofer...run Audyssey (with subwoofer not detected)...enable subwoofer in speaker config after Audyssey...run external subwoofer EQ device like Antimode. Will this even work? (mains eq by Audyssey, sub eq by Antimode)?

 

If you change the speaker configuration after running Audyssey, e.g. add the sub, Audyssey becomes disabled until you re-run the calibration with  the new configuration.

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)