AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › User experiences on Velodyne SMS-1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

User experiences on Velodyne SMS-1 - Page 2

post #31 of 332
5/12/08 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpedris View Post

I've read that the SMS best serves multiples subs. Is it worth getting one for a single sub system. I have an old Paradigm PW-2200. Quite boomy. I'm hoping the SMS can help me clear the boom.

Any thoughts?

If its in a corner, move it.

Have you run a frequency response test?
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #32 of 332
5/12/08 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I have yet to re-run Audyssey (I loathe that step...) Is this critical? Should I use the Fathom 113 ARO internal calibration (as I have), or should it be bypassed?

Audyssey, SMS-1 and ARO. Hmmmmm...... so many EQ's... so little time.

I have the same "issue" as you. I have an Onkyo 885 pre/pro with Audyssey MultEQ XT, (what version of Audyssey do you have?), an SMS-1 and dual JL F112's with ARO. After much experimentation I have decided to remove the SMS-1, turn off the ARO's and just let Audyssey MultEQ XT be the sole EQ for my system.

My logic:
1). Daisy-chaining multiple EQ's seems like a bad idea.
2). The SMS-1 can only EQ in the frequency domain and it can only EQ one listening position, (and it can make other LP's worse.)
3). ARO is only one band of EQ if I use the Master/Slave arrangement, or 2 bands, 1 for each F112, if I use the peer to peer arrangement.

Audyssey EQ's both subs together, as if they were one. It EQ's in the frequency *and* the time domains. It EQ's for multiple listening positions and it has higher resolution than the SMS-1. It doesn't have the SMS-1's OSD and there is no way to manually "tweak" the response. However, to my ears, Audyssey does a better job, especially at reducing the ringing of the bass in my room. The bass is tighter, cleaner and it has more "definition" than with the SMS-1, (which was a significant improvement over no EQ at all.)

My suggestion is to run Audyssey with the SMS-1 and ARO off. Then compare the sound of the system EQ'd by the SMS-1 and EQ'd by Audyssey MultEQ XT. I would be interested to see which you prefer. (I am assuming you have Audyssey MultEQ XT. Some of the older versions of Audyssey did not have the bass EQ capability of the MultEQ XT version. If you have an older version of Audyssey, then your SMS-1 will be the preferred method of EQ'ing the bass.)

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 332
5/12/08 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Audyssey, SMS-1 and ARO. Hmmmmm...... so many EQ's... so little time.

I have the same "issue" as you. I have an Onkyo 885 pre/pro with Audyssey MultEQ XT, (what version of Audyssey do you have?), an SMS-1 and dual JL F112's with ARO. After much experimentation I have decided to remove the SMS-1, turn off the ARO's and just let Audyssey MultEQ XT be the sole EQ for my system.

My logic:
1). Daisy-chaining multiple EQ's seems like a bad idea.
2). The SMS-1 can only EQ in the frequency domain and it can only EQ one listening position, (and it can make other LP's worse.)
3). ARO is only one band of EQ if I use the Master/Slave arrangement, or 2 bands, 1 for each F112, if I use the peer to peer arrangement.

Audyssey EQ's both subs together, as if they were one. It EQ's in the frequency *and* the time domains. It EQ's for multiple listening positions and it has higher resolution than the SMS-1. It doesn't have the SMS-1's OSD and there is no way to manually "tweak" the response. However, to my ears, Audyssey does a better job, especially at reducing the ringing of the bass in my room. The bass is tighter, cleaner and it has more "definition" than with the SMS-1, (which was a significant improvement over no EQ at all.)

My suggestion is to run Audyssey with the SMS-1 and ARO off. Then compare the sound of the system EQ'd by the SMS-1 and EQ'd by Audyssey MultEQ XT. I would be interested to see which you prefer. (I am assuming you have Audyssey MultEQ XT. Some of the older versions of Audyssey did not have the bass EQ capability of the MultEQ XT version. If you have an older version of Audyssey, then your SMS-1 will be the preferred method of EQ'ing the bass.)

Craig

Well hell, I just BOUGHT the SMS a week ago, so I can't give up yet....

Actually, part of my pursuit here was Audyssey, for me, has not been such a stellar improvement, and I've spent a lot of time in the Audyssey forum here and been very careful with the measurement process (and have done so numerous times) The 905 does the MultEQ XT as well. For me, I'm finding the sound thin and low/low-mid frequencies diminished (from a purely subjective POV - no room analysis yet, since REW got me a bit befuddled when I tried it for a few hours...)

So in went a Fathom, and things got mostly better but a bit worse, in that there was too much bass in certain regions - which I presume was my room modes in the 30 to 40 hz region)

So I'll play a little bit more tomorrow, but I'm going to be getting some additional room treatment panels (either RealTraps or homebuilt 2 x 4 by 4" 705 board), and possibly some Real Trap RFZ panels for the ceiling, to see if I can tame the room a bit, though from what I'm reading, in the frequencies I'm talking about, it's hard to do...
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 332
5/12/08 at 7:56pm
I have an Integra 9.8, quad Fathoms and an SMS-1. I'm still experimenting but my preference thus far is ARO for each Fathom pair in Master/Slave config, then use the SMS-1 to even out the summed quad sub output for rest of the low frequencies. The Audyssey EQ seems to overly soften my systems sound with or without the additional EQ's. The room has extensive treatments (bass traps and absorbers) so I'm guessing that is the reason Audyssey doesn't work well for me.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 332
5/13/08 at 3:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

I have an Integra 9.8, quad Fathoms and an SMS-1. I'm still experimenting but my preference thus far is ARO for each Fathom pair in Master/Slave config, then use the SMS-1 to even out the summed quad sub output for rest of the low frequencies. The Audyssey EQ seems to overly soften my systems sound with or without the additional EQ's. The room has extensive treatments (bass traps and absorbers) so I'm guessing that is the reason Audyssey doesn't work well for me.

Actually, Chris K, the Chief Technical Officer of Audyssey has commented that Audyssey can make an untreated room sound better, but it can work wonders in a well treated room. My room is pretty extensively treated with bass traps in the corners and absorbers at the first reflection points on all surfaces.

Anyway, you should certainly use whatever sounds best to you.

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 332
5/16/08 at 9:07am
Ok, here are my updated calibration captures





I changed the room around a bit - the Fathom 113 is on the left wall, about a 1/4 of the way from the front left corner. The DefTech Supercube 1 in on the rear wall, about 1/5 away from the right corner.

The speakers are crossed at 50 - after trial and error with crossover and the SMS phase controls, this seemed to provide the smoothest reading at any xover point.

The process was the calibrate the Fathom first with it's internal ARO feature. I then used an spl meter and the Onkyo 905 trim control to generally balance the two subs at about 75 db. I then did a manual EQ in the SMS (NO EQ on the 905, xover set to 80, which was the smoothest pre-Audyssey) to get a flat a result as possible. i then did an 8 point Audyssey calibration with the SMS in the loop. I then checked the response curve back in the SMS, determined the 50 hz xover was the best point with Audyssey engaged, and trimmed as you see here.

Things seem generally much improved, but I still think Audyssey is too bright for my tastes. I'm not sure what to do about the dip in the 90 hz region, or if I should be overly concerned...

Feedback would be appreciated.
LL
LL
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 332
5/16/08 at 3:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

Ok, here are my updated calibration captures




That's exceptionally flat response. However, those are some big cuts, ~12 dB at 20 to 30 Hz, and again at 63 Hz. Cutting this much affects the initial soundwave significantly. You take away the initial impact of the sound.

Take some readings at the other points you used for the Audyssey calibration. It would be interesting to see what the combination of Audyssey, the SMS-1 and ARO do at other points than just the primary LP. In addition, what did the response look like before you ran Audyssey? Was it this flat without Audyssey, or did Audyssey improve the respose significantly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I changed the room around a bit - the Fathom 113 is on the left wall, about a 1/4 of the way from the front left corner. The DefTech Supercube 1 in on the rear wall, about 1/5 away from the right corner.

The speakers are crossed at 50 - after trial and error with crossover and the SMS phase controls, this seemed to provide the smoothest reading at any xover point.

It doesn't look like you used the SMS-1 phase control. They're set to "0". Did you try different settings and decide that "0" was best?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

The process was the calibrate the Fathom first with it's internal ARO feature. I then used an spl meter and the Onkyo 905 trim control to generally balance the two subs at about 75 db. I then did a manual EQ in the SMS (NO EQ on the 905, xover set to 80, which was the smoothest pre-Audyssey) to get a flat a result as possible. i then did an 8 point Audyssey calibration with the SMS in the loop. I then checked the response curve back in the SMS, determined the 50 hz xover was the best point with Audyssey engaged, and trimmed as you see here.

Things seem generally much improved, but I still think Audyssey is too bright for my tastes.

I suggest you try Audyssey without the other two EQ's. Audyssey actually has a slight high frequency roll-off in their target curve. If it doesn't sound right to you, I suspect it's something in the setup of three different and independant EQ's. It may be that the bass is so muted by those big cuts that the high frequencies sound exaggerated by comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

I'm not sure what to do about the dip in the 90 hz region, or if I should be overly concerned...

There isn't much you can do about it. If your crossover is set at 50 Hz, the speakers are outputting most of the signal at 90 Hz. The sub signal is will be down almost 12 dB at 90 Hz, so the SMS-1 will have very little effect. Audyssey will affect it, but where it is now is probably as much impact as Audyssey will have on it.

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 332
5/16/08 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

That's exceptionally flat response. However, those are some big cuts, ~12 dB at 20 to 30 Hz, and again at 63 Hz. Cutting this much affects the initial soundwave significantly. You take away the initial impact of the sound.

Take some readings at the other points you used for the Audyssey calibration. It would be interesting to see what the combination of Audyssey, the SMS-1 and ARO do at other points than just the primary LP. In addition, what did the response look like before you ran Audyssey? Was it this flat without Audyssey, or did Audyssey improve the respose significantly.


It doesn't look like you used the SMS-1 phase control. They're set to "0". Did you try different settings and decide that "0" was best?


I suggest you try Audyssey without the other two EQ's. Audyssey actually has a slight high frequency roll-off in their target curve. If it doesn't sound right to you, I suspect it's something in the setup of three different and independant EQ's. It may be that the bass is so muted by those big cuts that the high frequencies sound exaggerated by comparison.


There isn't much you can do about it. If your crossover is set at 50 Hz, the speakers are outputting most of the signal at 90 Hz. The sub signal is will be down almost 12 dB at 90 Hz, so the SMS-1 will have very little effect. Audyssey will affect it, but where it is now is probably as much impact as Audyssey will have on it.

Craig

Thanks for the detailed feedback - I'm in the process of working things with an 80 hz crossover, and will post updated screen shots later

Is there a rule of thumb in terms of maximum db cut? My understanding is that you don't want to boost much more than 1 db to avoid clipping at higher volumes, but your comments about the low cuts seems to indicate perhaps the usefulness of the SMS even when cutting peaks is less than anticpated

In terms of flatness, I got it fairly flat with ARO/SMS - Audyssey actually increased the variations of the response curve, partly because it reset the fronts as full. So I tweaked the SMS as posted here. Foolishly, I did not take a shot of the pre-Audyssey SMS response curve.

And yes, in this go round, I played with every phase step, and this was the best. I'm in the midst of redoing at 80 hz, and it's looking like the phase will be set more like 30 or 45 - + polarity.

I'll be back...

Of course, the more you do this, the more you appreciate the phrase, "ignorance is bliss..."
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 332
5/16/08 at 5:19pm
Ok, some more tweaking...ARO and Audyssey still engaged...xover now set to 80





Some dip around 63, but I don't think as severe as the prior dip at 80, and bit of a tradeoff at the very bottom end, but not as severe cuts as before.

Now to actually listen to it for a change....
LL
LL
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 332
5/16/08 at 5:22pm
I owned an Onkyo 805 for a week and played with the Audyssey and it set the sub at 20 feet (really 7 ft away), and the fronts and surrounds at 7 ft. This confirmed my suspicion that the circuitry in the SMS delays the audio signal.
I have bipolar speakers, and the changes the Audyssey made were a definite reduction in quality...the sound seemed like it was coming out of a box with it engaged.
I returned the Onkyo (due to other issues), but learned from my experience and have adjusted the LFE delay (when possible) to compensate for the delay (at least in my system) using the SMS.

I use two SMSs and two ICBMs feeding two SVS Ultra 13s (front/stereo, LFE both and equalized) and two SVS CS Ultras (rear/stereo unequalized).

Paul
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 332
5/17/08 at 5:31am
Thrang,

Is the distance from your front sub and rear sub to your primary listing position the same? If not, what are the distances. Also, does the supercube have any kind of phase (not polarity) control and does it have an equalizer?

One other thing that I see on your last screen capture is that it looks like you're running your subs flat relative to your other speakers. Most run their subs anywhere from 3 to 5dbs hotter than the other speakers. I think Velodyne even recommends running the sub a little hot in the SMS-1 manual.
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 332
5/17/08 at 6:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

Thrang,

Is the distance from your front sub and rear sub to your primary listing position the same? If not, what are the distances. Also, does the supercube have any kind of phase (not polarity) control and does it have an equalizer?

One other thing that I see on your last screen capture is that it looks like you're running your subs flat relative to your other speakers. Most run their subs anywhere from 3 to 5dbs hotter than the other speakers. I think Velodyne even recommends running the sub a little hot in the SMS-1 manual.

The distances are close, but not exact - approximately 10 feet from the Fathom to the primary listening position, about 9 feet from the Supercube to the primary listening position.

The Supercube does have a variable phase control, and I did play with this relative to the Fathom and the SMS being 0 Phase, but this only introduce greater fluctuation in the curve (too high in the 40-60, too low in the 80 to 100 regions). The Supercube does not have it's own equalizer.

I thought the idea was to get a fairly linear response in the SMS EQ setting/graph, and then use some trim adjustments (in the presets, for example, or, with less flexibility, overall in the processor SUB setting) to adjust to taste/material. Are you saying you would expect the primary EQ/graph to be flat BUT about 3-5db hotter from the lowest frequency until the crossover? Perhaps I'm reading the documentation wrong, but I thought after adjusting the master and SMS volumes to be equal left and right, you adjust the phase, polarity, and EQ to flatten the response as much as is reasonable.

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 332
5/17/08 at 6:56am
You need to adjust the phase control on the supercube to peak out the crossover region and then correct any uneveness with the equalizer.

The logic behind peaking out the crossover region is that you are compounding the signal at its peak, otherwise they're out of phase causing cancellations(which may very well explain what you're hearing).
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 332
5/17/08 at 7:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

You need to adjust the phase control on the supercube to peak out the crossover region and then correct any uneveness with the equalizer.

The logic behind peaking out the crossover region is that you are compounding the signal at its peak, otherwise they're out of phase causing cancellations(which may very well explain what you're hearing).

Well, with 80 as my current xover, I'm not showing a dip in that region. Are you saying I should actually want a small peak in the 80 hz region?

Also, are you saying the Fathom phase should not be adjusted? Just to be clear, both the Fathom and the Supercube are running off a single SMS.

I guess my confusion lies in having two subs and the SMS, each with their own phase adjustments. Sequentially, what is the proper way to approach getting everything dialed in correctly? Should I get the two subs in phase with each other, and then use the SMS to get that pair in phase with the mains?

And to my earlier question - should the EQ/graph be as flat as reasonably possible from 15 to the crossover, or should the 3-5 db bump be factored into to curve itself, from low to crossover?

Thanks

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 332
5/17/08 at 8:34am
thrang,

Please check your PM(personal message).
Reply
Reply
post #46 of 332
5/18/08 at 8:34am
As a side note, has anyone noticed that selecting "No" when prompted to save changes still saves the changes? I was playing with some "what if" settings, and decided I didn't like the results, so I selected "exit", then "no", and I was returned to the main screen (the unit did not restart when you do choose to save your changes). Yet when I went back into the settings, the "unsaved" changes were still in effect.

Very odd, unless I'm doing something wrong here...
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 332
5/18/08 at 8:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrang View Post

As a side note, has anyone noticed that selecting "No" when prompted to save changes still saves the changes? I was playing with some "what if" settings, and decided I didn't like the results, so I selected "exit", then "no", and I was returned to the main screen (the unit did not restart when you do choose to save your changes). Yet when I went back into the settings, the "unsaved" changes were still in effect.

Very odd, unless I'm doing something wrong here...

My guess is (I haven''t actually tried it) this is a feature, not a bug. I'm thinking that powering down will loose the changes unless you do a save. That would allow you make changes and then play some material and see if you like the changes. You could then return to the EQ screen and save or tweak as necessary.
Reply
Reply
post #48 of 332
5/18/08 at 11:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

My guess is (I haven''t actually tried it) this is a feature, not a bug. I'm thinking that powering down will loose the changes unless you do a save. That would allow you make changes and then play some material and see if you like the changes. You could then return to the EQ screen and save or tweak as necessary.

Well, what's the point of having a Save option that offers Yes, No, or Cancel??? One would expect selecting no would throw away your changes....
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 332
5/18/08 at 1:52pm
thrang,

Any progress with the phase settings?

The two women in my car when you called were impressed. Thanks for allowing me to talk over their heads. lol
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 332
5/18/08 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

thrang,

Any progress with the phase settings?

The two women in my car when you called were impressed. Thanks for allowing me to talk over their heads. lol

Two? Does that provide a similar beneficial response like two subs do?

I've spent some time working with the phase issue, but need more time to tweak. But so far, it appears all other phase positions other than zero on the Supercube only make the overall response more uneven, without any appreciable change in the 80 hz region. Two things:

- my last graph appears fairly flat at 80 through 100 and beyond (80 being the crossover) is it the dip at 63 you think should be better?

- One additional piece to this is my main towers are powered, and while not hooked up as sub (they do have LFE inputs, unused right now) there is an adjustable low frequency volume knob which I will adjust to see how this effects the response around the crossover. The speakers are DefTech Mythos ST's. Currently, they are set around the halfway point
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 332
5/19/08 at 2:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBonn View Post

I owned an Onkyo 805 for a week and played with the Audyssey and it set the sub at 20 feet (really 7 ft away), and the fronts and surrounds at 7 ft. This confirmed my suspicion that the circuitry in the SMS delays the audio signal.
I have bipolar speakers, and the changes the Audyssey made were a definite reduction in quality...the sound seemed like it was coming out of a box with it engaged.
I returned the Onkyo (due to other issues), but learned from my experience and have adjusted the LFE delay (when possible) to compensate for the delay (at least in my system) using the SMS.

I use two SMSs and two ICBMs feeding two SVS Ultra 13s (front/stereo, LFE both and equalized) and two SVS CS Ultras (rear/stereo unequalized).

Paul

Well after placing my order for an SMS-1 earlier today I called Velo product support to ask how many feet they recommend compensating to account for the delay. After being told that my question was "silly", that nobody else had called to ask in the three years they'd been selling it, and that the gentleman I was speaking to had never thought about it because he only thinks about things that matter [no I am not making this up], I was informed that the SMS-1 introduces a 2.5 millisecond delay.

Can anybody here convert that to a distance for the purpose of settings in the AVR or alternatively the degrees of phase to add?

As an aside, I pointed out that it would be very easy to test before and after adjusting by looking at a graph at the crossover, but instead he suggested that I do a blind test with a friend adjusting the phase and suggested that I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Thanks, Velo support.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 332
5/19/08 at 2:53pm
About 2.5'
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 332
5/19/08 at 2:58pm
Thanks, yeah... I was just on my way back to post that I calculated it myself once I took a second and realized how simple it was. I got about 2.8 using a slightly higher speed of sound than 1k.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 332
5/19/08 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by virtual-human View Post

Thanks, yeah... I was just on my way back to post that I calculated it myself once I took a second and realized how simple it was. I got about 2.8 using a slightly higher speed of sound than 1k.

Yeah but most AVRs are limited to full or half feet.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 332
5/19/08 at 3:08pm
Yup, mine's limited to full feet. I was mostly just including my calculation to show that I had actually gone and done the math.

Thank you again for your response; it was appreciated!
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 332
5/19/08 at 4:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by virtual-human View Post

Yup, mine's limited to full feet. I was mostly just including my calculation to show that I had actually gone and done the math.

Thank you again for your response; it was appreciated!

So you are reducing the Audyssey/AVR Sub distance by about 2.5 feet to compensate for the SMS delay? (a 12.5 foot reading would become 10 feet)? Am I understanding correctly?

Thanks
Reply
Reply
post #57 of 332
5/19/08 at 4:41pm
Nope; you'd be adding that onto the actual distance of the sub, since it is a delay in the sound reaching your ears, just as a sound's source being further away from you would be.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 332
5/19/08 at 4:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by virtual-human View Post

Nope; you'd be adding that onto the actual distance of the sub, since it is a delay in the sound reaching your ears, just as a sound's source being further away from you would be.

Er...yeah, that's what I meant to say (slinking away, getting a 50-50 guess wrong...)
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 332
5/19/08 at 4:53pm
Audyssey already has done the math. If the sub's distance is set higher than it's actual distance, it has already accounted for the delay in the SMS-1. Don't change it.

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 332
5/19/08 at 4:57pm
Thrang,
I believe you would add to the sub distance to compensate. The other speakers are the ones actually delayed to then equal the sub.
Paul
(I didn't refress before posting this, and missed the other responses)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › User experiences on Velodyne SMS-1