Optimizing subwoofers and integration with mains: multi sub optimizer - Page 51 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 441Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1501 of 1584 Old 04-07-2019, 12:32 PM
Newbie
 
WingmanHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Hello Andyc56, thanks soo much for your Optimizer Program. Have been using MSO for a few months. Glad you have tackled the PEQ stacking issue, but I have an issue.

I have downloaded Ver 1.31 and tested out the Constraints Feature Page, checked Max Total Cut of 16, Optimizer rans fine. Then I Re-optimized with just the Constraints Max Total Boost checked with a value of 3, and the Optimizer ran fine.

I Reoptimized a third time with the Constraints Boxes checked for both Total Boost & Total Cut Max with the above values, the Optimizer starts, displays "working..." but never starts to adjust the PEQs, Gains, Delays. I let it run for 30 minutes.

- Sub Only Confiq, 3 Subs, 3 Lps
- 5 PEQs per Channel, along with usual Gain & Delay Blocks for each Channel
- PEQs have Boost values of Min -15db & Max 2db.


Any thoughts?
Tim

Last edited by WingmanHD; 04-07-2019 at 12:49 PM.
WingmanHD is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1502 of 1584 Old 04-07-2019, 12:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingmanHD View Post
Hello Andyc56, thanks soo much for your Optimizer Program. Have been using MSO for a few months. Glad you have tackled the PEQ stacking issue, but I have an issue.

I have downloaded Ver 1.31 and tested out the Constraints Feature Page, checked Max Total Cut of 16, Optimizer rans fine. Then I Re-optimized with just the Constraints Max Total Boost checked with a value of 3, and the Optimizer ran fine.

I Reoptimized a third time with the Constraints Boxes checked for both Total Boost & Total Cut Max with the above values, the Optimizer starts, displays "working..." but never starts to adjust the PEQs, Gains, Delays. I let it run for 30 minutes.

- Sub Only Confiq, 3 Subs, 3 Lps
- 5 PEQs per Channel, along with usual Gain & Delay Blocks for each Channel
- PEQs have Boost values of Min -15db & Max 2db.


Any thoughts?
Thanks for catching that. I found the problem and there will be a fix up shortly.
dgage and richardsim7 like this.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1503 of 1584 Old 04-07-2019, 01:19 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
New version 1.32 is up.
philipbtz, magicj1 and richardsim7 like this.
andyc56 is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1504 of 1584 Old 04-07-2019, 01:49 PM
Newbie
 
WingmanHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 5
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
New version 1.32 is up.
Thanks Andyc56, downloaded 1.32 & it resolved the problem.
andyc56 likes this.
WingmanHD is offline  
post #1505 of 1584 Old 04-09-2019, 11:16 AM
Member
 
Tobias Secker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 54
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 27 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hi thinking about using mso to sort out my dual subs. Just got a few questions really.

I can only adjust my subs via the minidsp hd and not my mains. So should i just do a subs only optimisation?

Is is possible to get the correct measurements using a spl meter?

Should i run this after audyssey or before?

When taking the measurements if they are before audyssey should I change the distance settings for my sub to 0 in audyssey?

Any help will be great! Thank you.

TV-UE55H6400, AVR-Denon ARV-X2400H, Center-Tannoy Mercury MC, Mains-Acoustic Solutions AV105II, Surrounds-Tannoy Mercury M1, Atmos-Tannoy 621, Subs-Dual BK Monolith Plus DF, MiniDSP 2x4 HD, HTPC-Mains-Presonus Eris E5's, Sub-KRK10S2 V2, Gaming PC-GTX1080, I7 4790k, Full Custom Loop, PS4.
Tobias Secker is offline  
post #1506 of 1584 Old 04-10-2019, 02:17 PM
Member
 
tengizk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Just another happy MSO user - not only I was able to achieve a very good and uniform FR, but I also was able to almost perfectly utilize the power of all 3 subwoofers. I get a high SPL with low THD that I've never seen before, ever. Although the MSO does not directly optimize for it, I found that it is an excellent modeling/simulation/manual optimization tool as well. I mean - with the magnitude/phase display for the filtered measurements and for the measurement groups one can manually adjust filter parameters to roughly optimize for the best power utilization. Using it as a starting point for the automatic optimization and with a reasonable set of filter parameter limits it is possible to optimize for both power and uniformity/flatness.

Thank you Andy!
andyc56 likes this.
tengizk is offline  
post #1507 of 1584 Old 04-10-2019, 02:49 PM
Member
 
tengizk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Regarding the questions on how to use MSO with Audyssey. It is totally possible, but you get best results only if you measure your subs and run the MSO after you apply Audyssey. In my experience Audyssey "integrates" subwoofers nowhere near as well as MSO even if it's a single or dual sub setup - which is what Aydyssey is supposed to do well.

So, here it goes:

1. Measure and level match the subwoofers for your listening positions, does not have to be precise, but somewhere reasonably close.
2. Run your Aydyssey optimization - if Aydyssey asks to change the subwoofer gain, do it and then repeat the step 1.
3. Manually set your main speakers to Small and set the crossover frequency in accordance to what your subwoofers are capable of.
4. If you have a receiver that supports the Aydyssey app, disable the EQ for the subs (you can do it by sliding the MultiEQ Filter Frequency Range for your subwoofer channel all the way to the left - in my case it was 20Hz) - this step is optional, but if you also want to try to maximize the subwoofer power utilization, it would be helpful.
5. Measure your mains and the subwoofers with Aydyssey On (Reference or Flat EQ curve), Dynamic Volume Off, and also Dynamic EQ off.
6. Run MSO, apply the MSO suggested filters, measure again to verify, refine/repeat if needed.

In order to achieve the best results I had to go over the above procedure multiple times as I learned how to better use MSO and how to reduce the overall THD and improve the power utilization for my setup.
andyc56 likes this.
tengizk is offline  
post #1508 of 1584 Old 04-13-2019, 09:23 AM
Advanced Member
 
magicj1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Lake district, UK
Posts: 759
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 137 Post(s)
Liked: 107
And another happy user here too. Took me a while to figure things out but I got there in the end, and the results speak for themselves. Thanks Andy, MSO is top drawer
andyc56 likes this.

Last edited by magicj1; 04-14-2019 at 11:24 AM.
magicj1 is offline  
post #1509 of 1584 Old 04-13-2019, 10:45 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,891
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1449 Post(s)
Liked: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by tengizk View Post
Regarding the questions on how to use MSO with Audyssey. It is totally possible, but you get best results only if you measure your subs and run the MSO after you apply Audyssey. In my experience Audyssey "integrates" subwoofers nowhere near as well as MSO even if it's a single or dual sub setup - which is what Aydyssey is supposed to do well.
If one is using MSO only on the subs then that’s backwards.

Use MSO to integrate the subs with EACH OTHER and then run the full system room correction, Audyssey in this case. It will integrate the “sub” with the mains.

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is offline  
post #1510 of 1584 Old 04-13-2019, 10:57 AM
Member
 
tengizk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
If one is using MSO only on the subs then that’s backwards.

Use MSO to integrate the subs with EACH OTHER and then run the full system room correction, Audyssey in this case. It will integrate the “sub” with the mains.
I did that, of course. Sub-only configuration was the first thing that I experimented with in fact. Audysey could not do as seamless a transition no matter what I tried.
tengizk is offline  
post #1511 of 1584 Old 04-13-2019, 03:16 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 176
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 109 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
Version 1.31 is up, with a fix for the "stacking" problem. In the new Constraints property page of the Optimization Options dialog, you can specify maximum overall PEQ boost, cut, or both on a per-configuration basis. This is described here.
This has been my long waiting feature since I used MSO last year. I can't wait to rerun my MSO again. Thanks Andy!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
andyc56 likes this.
Dick_Lai is offline  
post #1512 of 1584 Old 04-14-2019, 12:43 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,891
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1449 Post(s)
Liked: 883
Quote:
Originally Posted by tengizk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
If one is using MSO only on the subs then that’s backwards.

Use MSO to integrate the subs with EACH OTHER and then run the full system room correction, Audyssey in this case. It will integrate the “sub” with the mains.
I did that, of course. Sub-only configuration was the first thing that I experimented with in fact. Audysey could not do as seamless a transition no matter what I tried.
Maybe I misunderstood. Are you using MSO to optimize all channels?

Before running MSO are you using the MiniDSP to gain match your subs?

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is offline  
post #1513 of 1584 Old 04-14-2019, 02:41 PM
Member
 
tengizk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 37
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
Maybe I misunderstood. Are you using MSO to optimize all channels?

Before running MSO are you using the MiniDSP to gain match your subs?
In any configuration I first gain match the sub channels (my subs have manual gain control) - I do it by taking REW measurements and not just using an SPL meter. Then I take the measurements per MSO procedure (each sub channel in multiple listening positions) and use it as the input for the MSO. MSO in sub only configurations produces very good results - the FR is practically flat (magnitude variation below +/- 2db or so) with very good seat to seat variation. Then I let Audyssey do its magic using the optimized 3 sub system - for Aydyssey it's a single subwoofer, obviously. I don't know why, perhaps because Audyssey uses different criteria for reducing seat to seat variation vs MSO, but the end result when it comes to integrating the sub with the mains is far from perfect - one could see it from the REW measurements by observing tears in the spectrogram and high magnitude variations around the crossover frequency even in the main listening position.

But when I do it the other way around and let MSO have the last say, I get near perfect integration.
pepar and andyc56 like this.
tengizk is offline  
post #1514 of 1584 Old 04-15-2019, 08:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,313
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1181 Post(s)
Liked: 872
Question regarding a new house theater design with MSO in mind:

We are building a room where the ceiling increases in height as you get to the back of the room. The floor is otherwise rectangular.

Since this would be a room where you really cant model the FR for speaker placement, this is my strategy in the design:

4 subs behind the AT screen. one pair is 1/4 length from the side walls, and 1/4 length from the floor. The second pair is 1/4 length from the side walls and 1/4 length from the ceiling.

I am thinking we will need another subwoofer or two that we can move (in-ceiling perhaps?). we want all subs to be hidden.

The placement of the 1-2 subs to maximally take advantage of MSO optimization is what I am trying to figure out. I figure more unique positions (center of the room in the ceiling?) will give you unique permutations to correct for deficiencies in other speakers.

Does this seem like a valid approach given the difficulty of modeling non-rectangular rooms?

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1515 of 1584 Old 04-16-2019, 04:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
Question regarding a new house theater design with MSO in mind:

We are building a room where the ceiling increases in height as you get to the back of the room. The floor is otherwise rectangular.

Since this would be a room where you really cant model the FR for speaker placement, this is my strategy in the design:

4 subs behind the AT screen. one pair is 1/4 length from the side walls, and 1/4 length from the floor. The second pair is 1/4 length from the side walls and 1/4 length from the ceiling.

I am thinking we will need another subwoofer or two that we can move (in-ceiling perhaps?). we want all subs to be hidden.

The placement of the 1-2 subs to maximally take advantage of MSO optimization is what I am trying to figure out. I figure more unique positions (center of the room in the ceiling?) will give you unique permutations to correct for deficiencies in other speakers.

Does this seem like a valid approach given the difficulty of modeling non-rectangular rooms?
This is not an easy question to answer. It's worth considering some of the multi-sub techniques that are used with conventional EQ (all subs EQ'ed the same), and asking the question of whether such techniques are also best when using mode manipulation software such as MSO.

One such technique in its simplest form involves two subs, putting one, say, in the lower-left corner in front, and the other in the lower-right corner in front. Since the odd-order width modes have opposite polarities in these two corners, driving the subs in phase and with equal amplitudes excites these modes, but in opposite polarity, giving an effect that some, including Welti, call mode cancellation. More generally, if you were to drive these subs with signals whose amplitudes were not necessarily equal, and not necessarily in phase (for whatever reason), the result might be called (and is called by Toole) mode manipulation. This happens with systems like MSO and SFM.

Another technique is to place the subs in locations corresponding to, say, 1/4 and 3/4 of the length, width or height dimensions in a rectangular room. This places them in the nulls of the even-order axial modes. I call this technique mode avoidance, because it achieves its ends by avoiding the excitation of these modes altogether (in the lossless case). The ultimate mode avoidance system is the Double Bass Array, AKA "DBA". But forgetting about DBA for a moment, using more mundane mode avoidance techniques gives mode manipulation software like MSO fewer ways to fix the problems it may encounter. This is because you can't manipulate modes that you don't excite to begin with. So on the one hand, you've fixed some problems by avoiding the excitation of these modes, but on the other, you've degraded the ability of MSO to manipulate all modes. So what's the end result of this? It's hard to say. In order to attack such a problem, you'd need to combine MSO somehow with room simulation software, moving sources around, doing optimizations, and comparing results. I've never done this and probably never will. Having a non-rectangular room adds yet further complexity.

Interestingly, there's a paper by Sarris, Stefanakis and Cambourakis that deals with what they call "multichannel sound equalisation", which is just another phrase for individual EQ of multiple sources to achieve the desired responses at multiple listening positions. They assumed a rectangular room, and evaluated multiple combinations of source locations to achieve the most robust solution. They concluded that having eight sources, all of them in the corners in both floor and ceiling, were the best. See figure 3 of that paper for the configurations they simulated. Since corner locations excite all modes, this seems to suggest that for mode manipulation software, the ability to excite all modes may give better results than using mode avoidance techniques, even though such mode avoidance techniques may be best in the case for which all subs have the same EQ applied.
sdurani and spotts29 like this.

Last edited by andyc56; 04-16-2019 at 05:19 AM.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1516 of 1584 Old 04-16-2019, 06:25 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,313
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1181 Post(s)
Liked: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
This is not an easy question to answer. It's worth considering some of the multi-sub techniques that are used with conventional EQ (all subs EQ'ed the same), and asking the question of whether such techniques are also best when using mode manipulation software such as MSO.

One such technique in its simplest form involves two subs, putting one, say, in the lower-left corner in front, and the other in the lower-right corner in front. Since the odd-order width modes have opposite polarities in these two corners, driving the subs in phase and with equal amplitudes excites these modes, but in opposite polarity, giving an effect that some, including Welti, call mode cancellation. More generally, if you were to drive these subs with signals whose amplitudes were not necessarily equal, and not necessarily in phase (for whatever reason), the result might be called (and is called by Toole) mode manipulation. This happens with systems like MSO and SFM.

Another technique is to place the subs in locations corresponding to, say, 1/4 and 3/4 of the length, width or height dimensions in a rectangular room. This places them in the nulls of the even-order axial modes. I call this technique mode avoidance, because it achieves its ends by avoiding the excitation of these modes altogether (in the lossless case). The ultimate mode avoidance system is the Double Bass Array, AKA "DBA". But forgetting about DBA for a moment, using more mundane mode avoidance techniques gives mode manipulation software like MSO fewer ways to fix the problems it may encounter. This is because you can't manipulate modes that you don't excite to begin with. So on the one hand, you've fixed some problems by avoiding the excitation of these modes, but on the other, you've degraded the ability of MSO to manipulate all modes. So what's the end result of this? It's hard to say. In order to attack such a problem, you'd need to combine MSO somehow with room simulation software, moving sources around, doing optimizations, and comparing results. I've never done this and probably never will. Having a non-rectangular room adds yet further complexity.

Interestingly, there's a paper by Sarris, Stefanakis and Cambourakis that deals with what they call "multichannel sound equalisation", which is just another phrase for individual EQ of multiple sources to achieve the desired responses at multiple listening positions. They assumed a rectangular room, and evaluated multiple combinations of source locations to achieve the most robust solution. They concluded that having eight sources, all of them in the corners in both floor and ceiling, were the best. See figure 3 of that paper for the configurations they simulated. Since corner locations excite all modes, this seems to suggest that for mode manipulation software, the ability to excite all modes may give better results than using mode avoidance techniques, even though such mode avoidance techniques may be best in the case for which all subs have the same EQ applied.
I was looking at the mode avoidance concept to some extent with the speakers behind the screen. It seems reasonable to use mode avoidance as much as is theoretically possible and only then excite modes that are problems. I figured the mode excitation speakers (perhaps in the the front corners like you mentioned) would might be a good fit. I am guessing that I have no great option but to get the primary subs established, measure them, and then add a test sub (I have a cheap little one) that I can move around and measure in different locations.

The key to keeping the subs hidden will ultimately be that walls or ceilings have the depth required and the flexibility to move stuff around behind baffles. This can be a big waste of space depending on the aesthetics and the total space in the room.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1517 of 1584 Old 04-16-2019, 03:47 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazar View Post
I was looking at the mode avoidance concept to some extent with the speakers behind the screen.
If I understand your sub configuration correctly, you have four subs on the front wall, at 1/4 and 3/4 of the width and height dimensions. If that is correct, this is, in effect, half of a DBA. When combined with aggressive absorption on the back wall of a rectangular room, it's sometimes called an SBA. MSO is almost useless in such systems, because they try to approximate a plane wave from the front array. This can only be done by having each of the four subs on the front wall have acoustic outputs that are equal in amplitude and in phase with one another in the near field of each sub. But the whole point of MSO is to alter these amplitude and phase relationships. As such, using MSO together with sub positions that allow all modes to be excited is likely to be the most effective way to use it. As I mentioned before, the mode avoidance technique diminishes, and in extreme cases such as the DBA, eliminates the ability of MSO to give the desired results.

Taking the extreme case of a DBA, the only valid use for MSO is to treat the DBA as a two-sub system for which the only allowable adjustments are the attenuation and delay of the rear array with respect to the front one. As I recall, the guy from the German DBA forum did just this, and it did work.

The one extra sub you're planning to use in the back, which frankly appears to be an afterthought, is not likely to do what you think it might, and may just add confusion. Given your configuration, I'd skip the back sub, not use MSO at all, and only use conventional EQ on the front array.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1518 of 1584 Old 04-17-2019, 04:54 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
If I understand your sub configuration correctly, you have four subs on the front wall, at 1/4 and 3/4 of the width and height dimensions. If that is correct, this is, in effect, half of a DBA. When combined with aggressive absorption on the back wall of a rectangular room, it's sometimes called an SBA. MSO is almost useless in such systems, because they try to approximate a plane wave from the front array.
I should clarify this.

With four front-wall subs at the 1/4 and 3/4 width and height positions, there is not just mode avoidance of the even-order height and width axial modes going on due to the subs being placed in nulls of these modes. Such an arrangement also locates the subs symmetrically with respect to the odd-order height and width axial modes. This means that if the driving signals of these subs are equal in amplitude and in phase, you're also getting mode cancellation of the odd-order height and width axial modes with this arrangement. So it accomplishes mode avoidance of even-order height and width axial modes, combined with mode cancellation of odd-order height and width axial modes. Using MSO to alter the relative amplitude and/or phase of the signals to these subs will degrade the mode cancellation of the odd-order height and width axial modes that would otherwise occur naturally with this arrangement.
sdurani likes this.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1519 of 1584 Old 04-18-2019, 06:10 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
blazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 4,313
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1181 Post(s)
Liked: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
If I understand your sub configuration correctly, you have four subs on the front wall, at 1/4 and 3/4 of the width and height dimensions. If that is correct, this is, in effect, half of a DBA. When combined with aggressive absorption on the back wall of a rectangular room, it's sometimes called an SBA. MSO is almost useless in such systems, because they try to approximate a plane wave from the front array. This can only be done by having each of the four subs on the front wall have acoustic outputs that are equal in amplitude and in phase with one another in the near field of each sub. But the whole point of MSO is to alter these amplitude and phase relationships. As such, using MSO together with sub positions that allow all modes to be excited is likely to be the most effective way to use it. As I mentioned before, the mode avoidance technique diminishes, and in extreme cases such as the DBA, eliminates the ability of MSO to give the desired results.

Taking the extreme case of a DBA, the only valid use for MSO is to treat the DBA as a two-sub system for which the only allowable adjustments are the attenuation and delay of the rear array with respect to the front one. As I recall, the guy from the German DBA forum did just this, and it did work.

The one extra sub you're planning to use in the back, which frankly appears to be an afterthought, is not likely to do what you think it might, and may just add confusion. Given your configuration, I'd skip the back sub, not use MSO at all, and only use conventional EQ on the front array.
Actually it is the front baffle wall where I have the option of doing a LOT of absorption. The back wall not as much due to a big window that needs to be there.

The up sloping ceiling towards the back of the room makes me think the room won't behave like an SBA which is why I am worried about being able to do some extra subs to help the final outcome with or without MSO to help. I haven't found any heat maps or examples yet of people that have a room with this ceiling configuration yet to even get an idea of what the modes might look like.

Blazar!
blazar is offline  
post #1520 of 1584 Old 04-18-2019, 10:28 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,891
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1449 Post(s)
Liked: 883
I have a 1degree sloped ceiling as well as canted left and rear walls. A 30-yr ago wild idea that I could eliminate echos made me do it. Well I have zero slap echo, but I also have a room that can’t be (simply) modeled for modes.

Super Chunk corner bass traps and a lot of absorption behind my screen wall along with 2” OC 703 first reflection point absorbers - including rear wall - have turned it into a very good space acoustically.

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater

Last edited by pepar; 04-18-2019 at 10:40 AM.
pepar is offline  
post #1521 of 1584 Old 04-19-2019, 10:34 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Bug alert: Version 1.33 is up now. The global constraints on maximum PEQ boost and cut were only working on the legacy PEQs and not the RBJ PEQs. That's fixed now.
dgage, philipbtz and richardsim7 like this.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1522 of 1584 Old 04-21-2019, 11:46 AM
Senior Member
 
Fackamato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by tengizk View Post
In any configuration I first gain match the sub channels (my subs have manual gain control) - I do it by taking REW measurements and not just using an SPL meter. Then I take the measurements per MSO procedure (each sub channel in multiple listening positions) and use it as the input for the MSO. MSO in sub only configurations produces very good results - the FR is practically flat (magnitude variation below +/- 2db or so) with very good seat to seat variation. Then I let Audyssey do its magic using the optimized 3 sub system - for Aydyssey it's a single subwoofer, obviously. I don't know why, perhaps because Audyssey uses different criteria for reducing seat to seat variation vs MSO, but the end result when it comes to integrating the sub with the mains is far from perfect - one could see it from the REW measurements by observing tears in the spectrogram and high magnitude variations around the crossover frequency even in the main listening position.



But when I do it the other way around and let MSO have the last say, I get near perfect integration.
I have the same experience. No matter what I tried, Audyssey messed up the sub integration. I had to run Audyssey with the subs muted, and enable the subs in the AVR speaker configuration after Audyssey was done, together with tweaking the sub distance.

This way Audyssey does no EQ or integration with the sub(s), so it's all MSO (which was done before).

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

LG OLED55C6P
Denon X4400H 5.2.4 (no SW - front full range > MiniDSP 2x4 HD)
Denovo HTM-10 < Behringer iNUKE NU1000DSP
HSU Research surrounds
2x18" Dayton Ultimax sealed < Pro-LITE 7.5 amp
Fackamato is offline  
post #1523 of 1584 Old 04-21-2019, 02:14 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
I'm pretty sure that Audyssey is doing sub/mains integration purely by distances/delays computed from the impulse responses of mains and subs. For ensuring that the main speakers line up with one another, this works well, as the impulse response of a full-bandwidth speaker is sharp and narrow, making a "time of arrival" computation very accurate. But trying to determine distance/delay from a sub impulse response is not an exact science, because the response is stretched out in time, with no clear "time of arrival" cue. In addition, room modes can make a sub's impulse response look quite ratty. REW uses a sophisticated technique to compute sub delay/distance (cross-correlation with the minimum-phase impulse response), but even with such heroics, I've still seen people getting strange answers for sub distance in REW. This is not REW's fault, but a symptom of a problem that doesn't always have a solution that works reliably.

As the old saying goes, "The proof is in the pudding," and the "pudding" in this case is the flatness of the combined main/sub response in the crossover region. The best way to get this right is to do all integration calculations in the frequency domain (once the mains are lined up with one another using time-domain techniques), iteratively tweaking the sub delay and maybe other parameters to get the best flatness of the combined main/sub response in the crossover region.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1524 of 1584 Old 04-22-2019, 10:13 AM
Member
 
readthis13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Hey Guys,

I just picked up a Lexicon MC-10 (which will be replacing a Denon 6200W w/ Audyssey XT32). I'm brand new to REW, and was originally thinking of using the calibrated mic that came w/ the MC-10 to use w/ REW. I plugged it in, and used the calibration file on Lexicon's website, and it seemed to work.

However, due to my uncertainty in whether or not REW is supposed to work w/ the Lexicon mic, and can do so accurately, I just went ahead ordered the UMIK-1 and the miniDSP (HD) - as I figured I needed the miniDSP anyway for this to all work.

I don't really know where to begin in terms of how to calibrate everything using MSO w/ REW w/ Dirac Live. I've never used either, so this will be a bit of a learning curve. I also am not entirely sure how to hook this MiniDSP up into my system, and when to do so. The MC-10 has two LFE outs. I had assumed I'd hook the 2 outs to the 2 inputs on the MiniDSP, and then from it to the 2 subs.

I only have 2 subs (both SVS subs w/ controls on them to adjust phase and other settings). One of the subs is being run wirelessly, and seen by Audyssey as 31' ft away from MLP whereas the wired sub is seen as 14.7' away.

I guess what I'm asking here, is when should I hook up the miniDSP (before running Dirac Live, or after), and how I should hook it up (two LFE outs on the PreAmp to the two in on the miniDSP)?

Finally, being that I'm running only 2 subs, is MSO needed here, or does anyone know if Dirac Live will account for the distance, then I'd be able to use REW to adjust Phase and level?
readthis13 is offline  
post #1525 of 1584 Old 04-22-2019, 02:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by readthis13 View Post
I guess what I'm asking here, is when should I hook up the miniDSP (before running Dirac Live, or after)
Before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by readthis13 View Post
and how I should hook it up (two LFE outs on the PreAmp to the two in on the miniDSP)?
The way the miniDSP is normally used is to tell your AVR or pre-pro that you have only one sub. Then pick the input of the miniDSP you want to use, and configure its input routing matrix to route the input to two outputs of your choice. See the miniDSP 2x4 HD documentation for how to do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by readthis13 View Post
Finally, being that I'm running only 2 subs, is MSO needed here
I think only you can answer that. What I'd suggest doing first is to read AustinJerry's REW guide, and also his guide, How to Time Align Multiple Subs on a Single Output Channel. Once you learn these manual procedures, if you come up with a result that you're satisfied with, that's all you need to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by readthis13 View Post
or does anyone know if Dirac Live will account for the distance, then I'd be able to use REW to adjust Phase and level?
Once you've adjusted the relative delay of the subs using the above techniques, Dirac will treat the subs as if they were one, and set the sub distance accordingly.
pepar and readthis13 like this.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1526 of 1584 Old 04-22-2019, 04:28 PM
Member
 
readthis13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
What I'd suggest doing first is to read AustinJerry's REW guide, and also his guide, How to Time Align Multiple Subs on a Single Output Channel. Once you learn these manual procedures, if you come up with a result that you're satisfied with, that's all you need to do.
Thanks for your help here. I read through the guides (I'm sure the first of many passes to try and wrap my head around it). Would MSO take care of much of this for me instead of needing to go through this manual process? This is far more in depth than I had though, so it'll take me awhile to stumble my way through it all...
readthis13 is offline  
post #1527 of 1584 Old 04-22-2019, 06:48 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by readthis13 View Post
Thanks for your help here. I read through the guides (I'm sure the first of many passes to try and wrap my head around it). Would MSO take care of much of this for me instead of needing to go through this manual process? This is far more in depth than I had though, so it'll take me awhile to stumble my way through it all...
If you don't know how to do the multi-sub integration manually, then MSO is not for you. MSO is for people who have gone through the manual procedure and realized that there are some weaknesses to it that they'd like to see addressed in a piece of software. MSO was never intended as a way to relieve people from understanding the problem of multi-sub integration itself, but as a way for people to amplify their existing understanding to achieve better results than they could achieve manually.
sdurani, pepar, magicj1 and 1 others like this.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1528 of 1584 Old 04-22-2019, 09:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Fackamato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 47
edit: I guess what I'm after is - how do I setup MSO so that it favors the front speakers instead of the subwoofers above a certain octave/frequency, in order to achieve the target (curve)?

Can anyone shed a light on what I am doing wrong? In my process, MSO is boosting the subs a lot in the higher frequencies (60Hz and up), but I'd rather have the FL FR take care of that domain.

Optimization criteria 15-160Hz
Frequency range to compute auto (150-300Hz)
A target curve is added (from Audiofrog)
Total PEQ constraint is in place, +6dB.

(ignore the THX filter added in the shared filters section - is not there when computing)

The setup is FL FR in Audyssey bypass mode (so no processing done - just distance and level), and Audyssey seeing "one" subwoofer which actually two, behind a MiniDSP. I level matched and time aligned the subs before Audyssey - so the sub only measurements in MSO are with Audyssey on (no dynamic EQ of course).

MLP RAW





Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	test-msoresult.png
Views:	125
Size:	30.9 KB
ID:	2557104   Click image for larger version

Name:	test-filter.png
Views:	125
Size:	28.8 KB
ID:	2557106   Click image for larger version

Name:	test-mlp.png
Views:	129
Size:	33.3 KB
ID:	2557108  
Attached Files
File Type: zip MSO after Audyssey front LR bypass Audiofrog shared msop.zip (293.7 KB, 4 views)

LG OLED55C6P
Denon X4400H 5.2.4 (no SW - front full range > MiniDSP 2x4 HD)
Denovo HTM-10 < Behringer iNUKE NU1000DSP
HSU Research surrounds
2x18" Dayton Ultimax sealed < Pro-LITE 7.5 amp

Last edited by Fackamato; 04-22-2019 at 10:00 PM.
Fackamato is offline  
post #1529 of 1584 Old 04-23-2019, 07:44 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,481
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 631
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fackamato View Post
edit: I guess what I'm after is - how do I setup MSO so that it favors the front speakers instead of the subwoofers above a certain octave/frequency, in order to achieve the target (curve)?

Can anyone shed a light on what I am doing wrong?
In order to prevent MSO from applying PEQ to the subs above a certain frequency f0, you need to set the maximum center frequency of each subwoofer PEQ to f0. You have them set to 160 Hz in this project.

That said, there are so many things wrong with this project that I don't even know where to begin. The best suggestion I can give you is to not use MSO at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fackamato View Post
(ignore the THX filter added in the shared filters section - is not there when computing)
If you put a filter into a filter channel, it is "there when computing". Locking its parameters just means the optimizer is prevented from adjusting those parameters. It doesn't mean the filter is disabled. The fact that you put a filter there demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding. The measured data shows a subwoofer LPF is already present - at way too low a frequency for MSO to be of any use at all.
richardsim7 likes this.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1530 of 1584 Old 04-23-2019, 08:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Fackamato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Renton, WA
Posts: 249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 122 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Question

I knew I shouldn't have uploaded my test project where I was messing around with filters. Please ignore the THX filter as I mentioned in my post, it hasn't been present in the configurations I've used MSO with. It was added for experimentation and learning, not for actual use in a system.


I just had another look at the documentation and I think I see where the flaw is. The LPF for LFE, when using double bass / LFE+Main setting for the sub in the AVR, was most likely not set to 250Hz so the sub signals are probably missing a lot of the higher end output. I'll re-take the measurements and try again.

edit: Under the HDMI section, there is this the below talking about how to correct for bass management / redirection in the AVR (which is the only way to get sound from a subwoofer from the AVR if not using HDMI unless I am mistaken).

Does the below still apply when you are not using HDMI?

Quote:
Hardware Loopback Measurements Using HDMI
In order to do hardware loopback measurements with HDMI, you'll need to use either a pre-pro or an AVR with preamp outputs. You'll need to take the loopback signal from the preamp output corresponding to the HDMI input used for the timing reference signal. You'll also need to avoid configurations that cause a 6 dB error in the sub measurement level.

Avoiding Configurations That Cause 6 dB Sub Level Measurement Errors
A 6 dB sub level measurement error will occur when the following conditions occur simultaneously.
  • The subs are energized through the bass management via a main channel stimulus for measurements used with MSO "subs plus mains" configurations.
  • The timing reference signal goes through a channel of the preamp whose bass is redirected to the subs. This can happen if the corresponding speaker of that channel is set to "small", or if the "LFE+Main" (Denon, Marantz), "Double bass" (Onkyo), "Plus" (Pioneer) or other special modes are used that redirect main channel bass to the subs even when the corresponding main channel speaker is set to "large".

The only way bass redirection in the loopback channel is acceptable is if the left and right main speakers are energized and measured simultaneously, and the loopback channel is either the left or right main channel. The workaround examples below should clarify this idea.
edit2: And you need an actual loopback channel - acoustic timing reference will not work?

LG OLED55C6P
Denon X4400H 5.2.4 (no SW - front full range > MiniDSP 2x4 HD)
Denovo HTM-10 < Behringer iNUKE NU1000DSP
HSU Research surrounds
2x18" Dayton Ultimax sealed < Pro-LITE 7.5 amp

Last edited by Fackamato; 04-23-2019 at 08:56 AM.
Fackamato is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off