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 2162

post #64831 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

.
If you have read owners manuals recently, ( about 20 in the last few weeks) you will see they are not clear and direct. Vague is almost too kind.

They are far worse than ever. The Marantz AV 7005 preamp/processor manual was a nightmare. To adapt Mark Twain's comment about James Fenimore Cooper's writing, when given a choice between the correct word and the approximate word, they invariably select the approximate word. Sometimes the approximation isn't even close. One would think that "Surround Parameter" would have something to do with surround, rather than dialog EQ that is applied to either the center (not surround) channel only, or to all channels in general -- they're not telling. Several functions are misnamed. The reader is sent from page to page through the manual to answer questions that are only sometimes answered. So one emails, gets a fishy answer, then emails again and gets a contradictory answer, and then telephones to get a tie-breaker. They need to test their manuals with a variety of readers.
Edited by garygarrison - 9/10/13 at 5:21pm
post #64832 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

I actually expect products released to production to work as they advertise. I will praise those that do, and slam without mercy those that do not.

NAD T757 came today. It uses AUDESSEY to set speaker levels, distances, and crossovers. it still seemed to think my speakers violate the laws of physics. 

 

By this do you mean that the crossover that was chosen is lower than the specification of your speaker would suggest is correct?  You must be aware, I would think, that Audyssey does not measure the speaker. It measures the speaker and the room as a combination. It is easily possible to place a speaker in a room such that the output will play much lower than the manufacturer's specification, which is produced in laboratory conditions not actual rooms (for obvious reasons). If your speakers are being subjected to any form of room reinforcement at the bottom end, then Audyssey will detect this and it will report back to the AVR what the mic heard - actually the -3dB point of the FR.  If you believe that the mic or the algorithm is not working properly, well, that is your belief. But it is not supported by the facts as observed by literally hundreds or even thousands of users who have contributed to this thread. Why would you believe that the mic is not simply reporting what it heard?

 

Many of your comments lately suggest that you do not have a 100% understanding of how Audyssey works, or what it is supposed to do and not do. Again, I suggest reading the FAQ or the more advanced Setup Guide, both linked in my signature. 

 

(BTW, if you are going to highlight a word in CAPS, it's a good idea to spell it right - especially in a thread that has the word in its title. Just sayin' ;))

post #64833 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

.
If you have read owners manuals recently, ( about 20 in the last few weeks) you will see they are not clear and direct. Vague is almost too kind.

They are far worse than ever. The Marantz AV 7005 preamp/processor manual was a nightmare. To adapt Mark Twain's comment about James Fenimore Cooper's writing, when given a choice between the correct word and the approximate word, they invariably select the approximate word. Sometimes the approximation isn't even close. One would think that "Surround Parameter" would have something to do with surround, rather than dialog EQ that is applied to either the center (not surround) channel only, or to all channels in general -- they're not telling. Several functions are misnamed. The reader is sent from page to page through the manual to answer questions that are only sometimes answered. So one emails, gets a fishy answer, then emails again and gets a contradictory answer, and then telephones to get a tie-breaker. They need to test their manuals with a variety of readers.

 

I think that in most cases, the information delivered on AVS is more useful than the manuals. Onkyo manuals aren't too bad - they are complex but then so are modern AVRs but most questions are answered reasonably well. I have never read a Denon/Marantz manual, but knowing that batpig has a very popular online publication called something like the "Denon to English Dictionary" it suggests they are less than clear :)

post #64834 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by svegesna View Post

Hi guys
can I run audyssey xt32 setup if I'm driving LFC with external amps connected with preouts from denon 4311ci and surrounds with the 4311ci amps ?

 

Like baptpig, I'm not sure either what your question is - but if it's what we think it is, then this might be useful:

 

a)13. Will Audyssey work if I am using external amplification?

post #64835 of 70896

Audyssey MultEQ XT32 - $649. 

 

 

For anyone wanting to get Audyssey XT32 at what is probably the lowest price they will ever see ... the unit is Deal of the Day on Amazon.com today.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/goldbox/ref=cs_top_nav_gb27

 

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR818-7-2-Channel-Network-Receiver/dp/B007JOO4XE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378899133&sr=8-1&keywords=onkyo+818

 

$649 including shipping!

post #64836 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvrgeek View Post

I actually expect products released to production to work as they advertise. I will praise those that do, and slam without mercy those that do not.

NAD T757 came today. It uses AUDESSEY to set speaker levels, distances, and crossovers. it still seemed to think my speakers violate the laws of physics. It also insisted one of my surrounds was out of phase, where the Marantz and the Emo did not. ( It is not, verified with a battery) As it has no eq capability, fixing the crossovers was easy. I am using an old 31 band eq fro the sub. Close to flat. Sounds great. You might guess, I am still not impressed.

If you have read owners manuals recently, ( about 20 in the last few weeks) you will see they are not clear and direct. Vague is almost too kind. A good example is looking at NAD documentation, you would not have a clue what AUDESSEY features were implemented. A couple of simple sentences is all it takes.

I think your room/speaker placement or Mic placement might be causing an issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by svegesna View Post

Hi guys
can I run audyssey xt32 setup if I'm driving LFC with external amps connected with preouts from denon 4311ci and surrounds with the 4311ci amps ?

Yes, and refer to it as LCR (left center Right) to not confuse anyone biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey MultEQ XT32 - $649. 


For anyone wanting to get Audyssey XT32 at what is probably the lowest price they will ever see ... the unit is Deal of the Day on Amazon.com today.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/goldbox/ref=cs_top_nav_gb27

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR818-7-2-Channel-Network-Receiver/dp/B007JOO4XE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378899133&sr=8-1&keywords=onkyo+818

$649 including shipping!

shop onkyo had em going for $500 shipped a couple months ago. I scooped one at that point, now that was a deal, but I sold it anyways. Just didn't like the onkyo GUI and didn't really need xt32 for the den speakers, haha
post #64837 of 70896
I'm a bit perplexed about a problem I've noticed with MultEQ XT calibration on my Denon 2113ci and Audyssey Dynamic EQ.
Last night, I decided to toy around with my system before watching a shiny new Star Trek Into Darkness blu ray. I was looking to change my rear speaker placement, and after doing so re-ran my Audyssey calibration, changing nothing but my rear speaker placement by raising them a foot or so above their original positions.
Front, Center, and Subwoofer placement (acoustic wall paneling and bass traps all remain completely untouched from a lengthy calibration I did a few months back). Rereading through both Audyssey and HSU FAQ’s/etc., (VTF3 MK.3) I decided to calibrate the subwoofer with its Gain turned to about 8 o’clock. This change was brought on from the fact that Dr.Hsu had recommended setting it at about the 9 o’clock position with the initial calibration (which resulted in a calibrated trim level of “-10” when I did it a few months ago), and allowing for subsequent adjustments to get the receivers trim adjustment within about ‘+’ or ‘-‘ 4, for the Auto On feature to work correctly.
So with the -10 trim setting set from the old calibration, everything worked fine, and the bass sounded tight and well blended without a hint of boominess. But since I’m an obsessive tinkerer, I decided to work at getting the trim on my receiver between +/- 4, (Resulting in +2.5) despite the fact that it was previously sounding great.
And so, to my actual inquiry: Previously, with my old trim level and old calibration, Audyssey Dynamic EQ worked perfect, with it turned on, it seemed like a nearly transparent feature, at high listening volumes, bass was tight and smooth, and low listening levels, bass was tight and smooth (I imagine it was doing a great job of octave-to-octave transformations as I went up and down in dB’s).
Now however, with my new calibration, sub gain down a bit, trim up to compensate Dynamic EQ is very unpleasant. I’m getting that stuffed up ears feeling of boomy bass resonance I had before when I had 2EQ (no bass correction), and it’s just too much. Now, I can get it to sound alright with all settings off, except Audyssey Equalization and the Reference Level offset (Denon*) set to about 15db’s (even though I’m watching a Dolby True HD blu ray), but its perplexing that there should be any change at all right? Gain+Trim=Reference level / Calibration levels should always be the same, as long as I’m within both ranges of either the +/-12 on the receiver, or the min and max on my subwoofer gain correct? For example, (Gain 9 + Trim -9 = 0 Reference) or (Gain 6 + trim -6 = 0), I know that Audyssey does much more complex things with respect to time-domain correction, fuzzy math etc. but my crude example is basically asking, all things being the same with the subwoofer except a minor down change in gain, and an up-change in trim, why at all would the Dynamic EQ sound that much different? And I mean, really different, from forgetting I had a subwoofer until I felt it, to now being pretty aware of it almost 80% of the time, and feeling like my ears are being stabbed at with Q-Tips. One last detail: my calibration crossover suggestions, and manually configured 80 Hz crossover were all set in the same manner as for the previous calibration. And all other compression/dynamic bells and whistles are turned off, except again, Audyssey Dynamic EQ, and the Audyssey (non-flat) response curve selected.
post #64838 of 70896
I emailed my friend at work and he seems to have some idea about what it may be, does this sound right? tongue.gif

"The pneumatic pseudo-reference level in juxtaposition to the inherited subjugated coaxial terms of endearment, when taken into account Sauron and Lord Voldemort, obliged to interfere with the results of your calibration process.

Dude, try calibrating it with different settings on the sub (gain, volume, etc.) It's weird that Audyssey went all whacko." -Anonymous (AVS member, I think?)
post #64839 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by arigg View Post

I'm a bit perplexed about a problem I've noticed with MultEQ XT calibration on my Denon 2113ci and Audyssey Dynamic EQ.
Last night, I decided to toy around with my system before watching a shiny new Star Trek Into Darkness blu ray. I was looking to change my rear speaker placement, and after doing so re-ran my Audyssey calibration, changing nothing but my rear speaker placement by raising them a foot or so above their original positions.
Front, Center, and Subwoofer placement (acoustic wall paneling and bass traps all remain completely untouched from a lengthy calibration I did a few months back). Rereading through both Audyssey and HSU FAQ’s/etc., (VTF3 MK.3) I decided to calibrate the subwoofer with its Gain turned to about 8 o’clock. This change was brought on from the fact that Dr.Hsu had recommended setting it at about the 9 o’clock position with the initial calibration (which resulted in a calibrated trim level of “-10” when I did it a few months ago), and allowing for subsequent adjustments to get the receivers trim adjustment within about ‘+’ or ‘-‘ 4, for the Auto On feature to work correctly.
So with the -10 trim setting set from the old calibration, everything worked fine, and the bass sounded tight and well blended without a hint of boominess. But since I’m an obsessive tinkerer, I decided to work at getting the trim on my receiver between +/- 4, (Resulting in +2.5) despite the fact that it was previously sounding great.
And so, to my actual inquiry: Previously, with my old trim level and old calibration, Audyssey Dynamic EQ worked perfect, with it turned on, it seemed like a nearly transparent feature, at high listening volumes, bass was tight and smooth, and low listening levels, bass was tight and smooth (I imagine it was doing a great job of octave-to-octave transformations as I went up and down in dB’s).
Now however, with my new calibration, sub gain down a bit, trim up to compensate Dynamic EQ is very unpleasant. I’m getting that stuffed up ears feeling of boomy bass resonance I had before when I had 2EQ (no bass correction), and it’s just too much. Now, I can get it to sound alright with all settings off, except Audyssey Equalization and the Reference Level offset (Denon*) set to about 15db’s (even though I’m watching a Dolby True HD blu ray), but its perplexing that there should be any change at all right? Gain+Trim=Reference level / Calibration levels should always be the same, as long as I’m within both ranges of either the +/-12 on the receiver, or the min and max on my subwoofer gain correct? For example, (Gain 9 + Trim -9 = 0 Reference) or (Gain 6 + trim -6 = 0), I know that Audyssey does much more complex things with respect to time-domain correction, fuzzy math etc. but my crude example is basically asking, all things being the same with the subwoofer except a minor down change in gain, and an up-change in trim, why at all would the Dynamic EQ sound that much different? And I mean, really different, from forgetting I had a subwoofer until I felt it, to now being pretty aware of it almost 80% of the time, and feeling like my ears are being stabbed at with Q-Tips. One last detail: my calibration crossover suggestions, and manually configured 80 Hz crossover were all set in the same manner as for the previous calibration. And all other compression/dynamic bells and whistles are turned off, except again, Audyssey Dynamic EQ, and the Audyssey (non-flat) response curve selected.

 

Excellent, detailed account of the system and the problem. If only everyone gave so much info!

 

HST, I can't see any reason why the changes you made would cause the effect you describe. But... if it sounded great before, why not just set the sub gain to what it used to be, run Audyssey again and then sit back and enjoy?

post #64840 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by arigg View Post

I emailed my friend at work and he seems to have some idea about what it may be, does this sound right? tongue.gif

"The pneumatic pseudo-reference level in juxtaposition to the inherited subjugated coaxial terms of endearment, when taken into account Sauron and Lord Voldemort, obliged to interfere with the results of your calibration process.

Dude, try calibrating it with different settings on the sub (gain, volume, etc.) It's weird that Audyssey went all whacko." -Anonymous (AVS member, I think?)

 

I'd agree 100% with your buddy, except it is by no means universally accepted that the subjugated coaxial terms cause the interference he suggests. 

post #64841 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
 
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Audyssey MultEQ XT32 - $649. 


For anyone wanting to get Audyssey XT32 at what is probably the lowest price they will ever see ... the unit is Deal of the Day on Amazon.com today.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/goldbox/ref=cs_top_nav_gb27

http://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-TX-NR818-7-2-Channel-Network-Receiver/dp/B007JOO4XE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378899133&sr=8-1&keywords=onkyo+818

$649 including shipping!

shop onkyo had em going for $500 shipped a couple months ago. I scooped one at that point, now that was a deal, but I sold it anyways. Just didn't like the onkyo GUI and didn't really need xt32 for the den speakers, haha

 

$500 is amazing. Onkyo's GUI is 'workmanlike' isn't it? ;)

post #64842 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I'd agree 100% with your buddy, except it is by no means universally accepted that the subjugated coaxial terms cause the interference he suggests. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Excellent, detailed account of the system and the problem. If only everyone gave so much info!

HST, I can't see any reason why the changes you made would cause the effect you describe. But... if it sounded great before, why not just set the sub gain to what it used to be, run Audyssey again and then sit back and enjoy?

Agreed, if its not broke why fix it....but then I wouldn't be on AVSFORUM if I thought that were at all true. biggrin.gif I'm a bit obsessive, excuse my looooongggg wwwwiiinnnddeedddnnnessss. haha. It is confounding though right, it 'ought' to sound the same, but I assure you it is quite different. My girlfriend noticed as well that the difference between having the reference offset at 15 seemed to make the LFE effects (starships going to warp, or phaser blasts, oh god, this is getting dorky) well blended and not boomy at all (as she had felt it was with the previous correction). Without me even suggesting it to her beforehand, she had wondered what I'd changed since it was too overwhelming.
post #64843 of 70896
I feel like it has to be a coincidence, some other variable must be confounding the measurement process. Changing the sub gain knob slightly certainly shouldn't cause such a drastic change in audio quality. Have you tried re running Audyssey again? Maybe it was just a bum calibration for whatever reason.
post #64844 of 70896
arigg,

Some people have found that Audyssey provides quite different calibrations when the microphone is not placed at exactly the same locations each time. Using a $20 boom microphone stand can help with the placements.

Of course, changing the positions and pointing directions of your surround speakers is going to change how the bass in the corresponding channels gets handled.

Also, you might want to consider actually measuring your room's acoustics and what Audyssey has done to compensate. A discussion of that particular rabbit hole is available at http://www.avsforum.com/t/1449924/simplified-rew-setup-and-use-usb-mic-hdmi-connection-including-measurement-techniques-and-how-to-interpret-graphs
post #64845 of 70896
Trim levels in the AVR being considered, where you had it to begin with is actually better than where you were trying to go. After testing many different trim levels I have deduced that having the sub trim seated comfortably between -2 and -7 is the honey pot in D&M AVR's and Pre's (That's denon and marantz). IF I moved my AVR trims up to positive territory I often found clipping at the front end of my outboard EQing system, and below -7dB, the EQ had to boost too much on the way out that I would clip the output. So, with that said, I think you were actually in a better place to begin with than where you "obsessively" were attempting to get it. FWIW, the perfectionist in my tried to find the optimal sweet spot with my equipment and it appears -5dB on the sub trim is perfect. Keep in mind I was adjusting other areas of the signal chain to keep gain matched each time I made a change, so the tests were pretty convincing but other equipment in the chain makes a difference for sure. My suggestion, try running audyssey again, perhaps it picked up a fluke in the system and just needs to be run again. Moving your surrounds should have a VERY minimal if at all effect on the overall response
post #64846 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by arigg View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I'd agree 100% with your buddy, except it is by no means universally accepted that the subjugated coaxial terms cause the interference he suggests.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Excellent, detailed account of the system and the problem. If only everyone gave so much info!

HST, I can't see any reason why the changes you made would cause the effect you describe. But... if it sounded great before, why not just set the sub gain to what it used to be, run Audyssey again and then sit back and enjoy?

Agreed, if its not broke why fix it....but then I wouldn't be on AVSFORUM if I thought that were at all true. biggrin.gif I'm a bit obsessive, excuse my looooongggg wwwwiiinnnddeedddnnnessss. haha. It is confounding though right, it 'ought' to sound the same, but I assure you it is quite different. My girlfriend noticed as well that the difference between having the reference offset at 15 seemed to make the LFE effects (starships going to warp, or phaser blasts, oh god, this is getting dorky) well blended and not boomy at all (as she had felt it was with the previous correction). Without me even suggesting it to her beforehand, she had wondered what I'd changed since it was too overwhelming.

 

This is a great example of when measurement tools would come in handy to confirm what your ears are hearing.  I don't suppose you have any gear (e.g. Omnimic, REW etc)?

 

EDIT:  I see Selden Ball has beaten me to it!


Edited by jkasanic - 9/11/13 at 10:39am
post #64847 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Trim levels in the AVR being considered, where you had it to begin with is actually better than where you were trying to go. After testing many different trim levels I have deduced that having the sub trim seated comfortably between -2 and -7 is the honey pot in D&M AVR's and Pre's (That's denon and marantz). IF I moved my AVR trims up to positive territory I often found clipping at the front end of my outboard EQing system, and below -7dB, the EQ had to boost too much on the way out that I would clip the output. So, with that said, I think you were actually in a better place to begin with than where you "obsessively" were attempting to get it. FWIW, the perfectionist in my tried to find the optimal sweet spot with my equipment and it appears -5dB on the sub trim is perfect. Keep in mind I was adjusting other areas of the signal chain to keep gain matched each time I made a change, so the tests were pretty convincing but other equipment in the chain makes a difference for sure. My suggestion, try running audyssey again, perhaps it picked up a fluke in the system and just needs to be run again. Moving your surrounds should have a VERY minimal if at all effect on the overall response

Awesome guys, thanks so much for your feedback. I lurk around and read a lot, so your help is super appreciated!

I am thinking it could only be a fluke as well.
For a second, I’d like to hold the assumption, that I kept the subwoofer gain at the same level (VTF3MKIII: kept in max extension at nine o clock, crossover “out”, etc. etc.), and that mic placement was the exact same as my previous calibration (doubtful, but for the sake of argument):
It only stands to reason that any change to the system in terms of placement, distance, and room boundaries with respect to my surrounds would have some equal corresponding change in Audyssey’s corrections (if all things were held equal). So, I don’t see how much the specific changes I made with the rears would affect the subwoofer output that much (again, suspending the reality that I probably muffled up the mic placement or it was some other fluke I didn’t notice). Perhaps there could be some sort of non-LFE bass content being managed by the receiver/subwoofer via a slightly different crossover “setting-suggestion” (with Audyssey’s hands tied by manufacturer crossover control preference), which is then corrected for in a way I may not understand ‘under the hood’???
Again though, my thinking would be that the Subwoofer has its very own unique place in the room/system, and therefore its own equalization, incident, timing and distance corrections, which take over for the below ‘cut-off’ frequencies (which I set manually to 80hz) in tandem with the discreet L.F. effects coming through the same subwoofer up to ~120Hz.

All of the above seems like a pretty tenuous link between Audyssey Room correction, and the Dynamic EQ function of response transformation as you move below or above the measured and corrected reference target. My idea of Dynamic EQ is that, despite a very different listening environment for each end user, which the MultEQ flavors try to correct (with various levels of precision depending on type), the Dynamic EQ function is based on a generally accepted, tried and true, response curve for psycho-acoustical perception of high and low frequencies as their intensity / subjective loudness changes. So the transformational procedure of Dyn EQ, applied to what would, ‘ideally’ be the same ‘reference’ response curve after corrections are made, should sound the same every time.
All in all this leads me to believe, I really just mucked up the ‘corrections’ in the first place, and the Subwoofer trim is boosted too much (with me only noticing it more with Dynamic EQ on) or there’s some sort of awkward computational procedure producing a boosted trim due to the gain level on my subwoofer? The first being likely, the second being oddball.
I obviously will need to recalibrate a few more times both ways (gain up/gain down) to see if it really is an ‘oddball’ situation. AHHHHHH…..
Hm....I do have a boom Mic with an articulating adapter for proper mic placement aimed at horizontal incident-grazing (sp?) measurements. I’ve done my best to recreate the suggested ‘listening bubble’ in a similar, if not nearly identical fashion, as my first calibration.
post #64848 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkasanic View Post

This is a great example of when measurement tools would come in handy to confirm what your ears are hearing.  I don't suppose you have any gear (e.g. Omnimic, REW etc)?

EDIT:  I see Selden Ball has beaten me to it!

REW yeah, SPl meter. I need to invest in some proper gear though for calibration though. biggrin.gif You guys rock. Thanks!
post #64849 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selden Ball View Post

arigg,

Some people have found that Audyssey provides quite different calibrations when the microphone is not placed at exactly the same locations each time. Using a $20 boom microphone stand can help with the placements.

This might be the problem! Every time I've run Audyssey multieqXT it has produced somewhat different results, unless the microphone has been in exactly the same 8 positions, and sitting at the same angle to the ceiling (90 degrees -- straight up as viewed from at least two directions).

A boom stand might help, but what do we do, wrap the boom in thick towels to prevent mid & hi frequency reflections? Of course, the Audyssey microphone must be used, since it's quirks are compensated for by Audyssey (they say).

Where to draw the line? One could fill all chairs with soft mannequins, remove the top 2/3 of the 8 heads, with replacement, and put the microphone on each, one by one, for each run. We should be sure to put the heads back on the 7 bodies not being used for the microphone during any given test. Oh, Audyssey says that microphone positions are not supposed to be in exactly the person-in-a-chair positions (except for the first, center LP, I presume), but spread around a bit. I guess we could put the microphone on a tripod that is wearing pants, but dead in both senses of the word.

I wish we had more standardized instructions. If Audyssey was a "golden ears, Emperor's New Clothes" company, like the one with a tree in its name, they could make a lot of money by marketing especially tall cat scratching posts -- just a little less than average ear height when sitting -- for the microphone to be placed on. Some people might pay big bucks for them.
post #64850 of 70896
For the record, I never pay close attention to the precise mic locations beyond the first measurement, and I always get relatively consistent results. Maybe slight differences in crossovers. I think this falls into the category of "way over thinking it".
post #64851 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

For the record, I never pay close attention to the precise mic locations beyond the first measurement, and I always get relatively consistent results. Maybe slight differences in crossovers. I think this falls into the category of "way over thinking it".

I've always wondered how people who make multiple measurements can pick out the one that suits them best? (Auditory memory comes to mind) As batpig says and we all know, MLP is most important, while the other locations are not really supposed to make a "night & day" difference. And then, what program materials are used for the evaluation (aka: listening tests) of a series of measurements? Do those people take a record of precise mic placements and go back to a fav configuration?

Thinkin' out loud! ...while tryin' not to "over think"! smile.gif
post #64852 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post


I wish we had more standardized instructions. 

 

The 'Audyssey 101' linked in my sig is as close to  standardised set of instructions you are likely to find.

post #64853 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batpig View Post

For the record, I never pay close attention to the precise mic locations beyond the first measurement, and I always get relatively consistent results. Maybe slight differences in crossovers. I think this falls into the category of "way over thinking it".

I've always wondered how people who make multiple measurements can pick out the one that suits them best? (Auditory memory comes to mind) 

 

Many of us use independent measurements to check what is actually going on in the room, at the MLP, after calibration. This enables us to pick out a 'good' calibration from a 'poor' one. Personally, I have never had a poor calibration provided I have followed the basic guidelines, but it is true that using different Audyssey mic positions each time will give different results. This, of course, is exactly what we would expect. Because the results can vary according to the mic positions, it seems like best practice, once one has identified a set of mic placements that produce a 'good' calibration, to use those same placements for subsequent calibrations - for example, if one has changed something in the room and needs to run Audyssey again.

 

Quote:
As batpig says and we all know, MLP is most important, while the other locations are not really supposed to make a "night & day" difference. And then, what program materials are used for the evaluation (aka: listening tests) of a series of measurements?

 

I use REW first to get a visual, graphic indication of the response in the room at the MLP.  Please don't reply with that guff about us not being able to replicate what Audyssey does - I know all that. But once the calibration is done, then we have a given acoustic performance in the room and that can be measured at the MLP using REW or OmniMic etc.  Doing such measurement shows that Audyssey has done a reasonable, but imperfect, job of EQing the speakers/room. We can then make adjustments to the room, using acoustic treatments, speaker placement, sub placement, crossover adjustments etc and then run Audyssey again if we wish on the basis that the better the room and the less seat to seat variance to start with, the better Audyssey can do its stuff. I would say this is not a typical way to proceed but rather an advanced one.

 

WRT to program materials, once my measurements have been taken and I can see that all is fairly well, I use certain music and movie tracks with which I am very familiar, to conduct a subjective listening test, paying attention to bass quality, imaging, HF quality and so on. Generally,  I find that the listening tests are in line with my observations of the measurements - for example, if I have graphed a dip in the mid-range, then I will usually be able to detect it on listening to vocals, if it is sufficiently large. (This is just an example).

 

 

Quote:

Do those people take a record of precise mic placements and go back to a fav configuration?
 
I have an Audyssey checklist that I use when doing a calibration. This is something I discovered was both useful and mandatory when learning to fly light aircraft and it ensures that no important steps are omitted and that things are undertaken in the appropriate sequence and so on.  Part of the checklist is a record of mic positions. 
 
While much of this may sound anal to those who do not practice it, I believe in a scientific method and this gives consistency and also enables me to have some understanding of why a particular thing has happened if the result differs from my expectations. This can then save masses of time subsequently. 
post #64854 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Many of us use independent measurements to check what is actually going on in the room, at the MLP, after calibration. This enables us to pick out a 'good' calibration from a 'poor' one. Personally, I have never had a poor calibration provided I have followed the basic guidelines, but it is true that using different Audyssey mic positions each time will give different results. This, of course, is exactly what we would expect. Because the results can vary according to the mic positions, it seems like best practice, once one has identified a set of mic placements that produce a 'good' calibration, to use those same placements for subsequent calibrations - for example, if one has changed something in the room and needs to run Audyssey again.

+1 on all of this. I took iPhone pictures of all 12 positions I use on my Audyssey Pro runs, following section d3 of the Audyssey 101 guide, with the mic at ear height (a few inches higher on positions 11 and 12 to stay the proper height from the MLP sofa back), and get consistent results as long as I remember to follow all the post-accessment REW/HDMI criteria. The latter _really_ requires a checklist, particularly if your laptop isn't dedicated to HT use as such, as several steps for use are required for getting HDMI audio, device recognition, and the associated ASIO settings in proper form.
post #64855 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mogorf View Post

I've always wondered how people who make multiple measurements can pick out the one that suits them best? (Auditory memory comes to mind) As batpig says and we all know, MLP is most important, while the other locations are not really supposed to make a "night & day" difference. And then, what program materials are used for the evaluation (aka: listening tests) of a series of measurements? Do those people take a record of precise mic placements and go back to a fav configuration?

Thinkin' out loud! ...while tryin' not to "over think"! smile.gif

There are several things we know. For example, we know Audyssey uses data from each mic location to assess frequency response variations over the listening area, and applies proprietary algorithms to produce filters. We also know that room response can vary significantly from one position in the room to another. So it isn't a big leap to conclude that different mic placements could produce significantly different calibration results.

I have never been an advocate of "tricking" Audyssey by picking mic placements based on some pre-measurements that predict flattest response. I am, however, an advocate of picking a mic placement pattern and sticking with it over and over again to minimize the effects of room response variations. If this makes any sense at all...
post #64856 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinJerry View Post



I have never been an advocate of "tricking" Audyssey by picking mic placements based on some pre-measurements that predict flattest response. I am, however, an advocate of picking a mic placement pattern and sticking with it over and over again to minimize the effects of room response variations. If this makes any sense at all...

lol The second sentence directly contradicts the first. nonsense indeed.
post #64857 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by arigg View Post

Hm....I do have a boom Mic with an articulating adapter for proper mic placement aimed at horizontal incident-grazing (sp?) measurements.

 

You do have the mic pointed directly up at the ceiling, right?

post #64858 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by garygarrison View Post

I wish we had more standardized instructions. 

The 'Audyssey 101' linked in my sig is as close to  standardised set of instructions you are likely to find.

I'd say they are the best set on AVS and was on of the first reasons I found this site a few years ago.
post #64859 of 70896
BTW I finally got around to redoing the Audyssey setup with the methodology of clustering around the MLP. The results are surprisingly clearer. I don't think I will ever go back to the Audyssey recommended way of placing the mic again unless I build a bonafide theater.
post #64860 of 70896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mo949 View Post

BTW I finally got around to redoing the Audyssey setup with the methodology of clustering around the MLP. The results are surprisingly clearer. I don't think I will ever go back to the Audyssey recommended way of placing the mic again unless I build a bonafide theater.



What do you attribute this to mo? Not picking up as much reflections possibly?
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)