Optimizing subwoofers and integration with mains: multi sub optimizer - Page 64 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 637Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1891 of 1916 Old 05-06-2020, 10:24 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
richardsim7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,474
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked: 2204
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post
That's what I was told by a Dirac rep a couple months ago. Made sense since that's how they do levels & delays (baked into the filter for each speaker).

If you look at devices that have DiracLive room correction, like the miniDSP 88A or the Monoprice HTP-1, you'll see 3 pairs of columns for levels & delays. The first pair of columns displays the levels & delays that Dirac sets, the next pair shows user offsets, the last pair shows the totals. So the manufacturers are not pretending that you can change the Dirac levels & delays, they are being transparent that you can only offset those values.

From what I've been told, the same will be true about crossover frequency IF you decide to use the sub/sat blending feature. Unlike levels & delays, there's no way to offset crossover frequency. But you can always turn off the auto-splice feature (especially if you already have a decent blend around your chosen crossover range).

Well from my limited use, I could click and drag the crossover line in DLBC and set it wherever I wanted


Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I'm not sure what kind of manual adjustments Dirac allows after running it, but MSO doesn't allow adding either delay blocks or gain blocks to main speaker channels. It's assuming distances and levels for the main speakers have already been set up properly before measurements are taken in REW. So you're left with using a shared sub delay block (corresponding to sub distance in AVR) and a shared sub gain block (corresponding to sub trim in AVR). Changing individual sub levels or delays would change the response, invalidating the Dirac EQ.

Right ok, so pre-Dirac sub-only optimisation, and then hope Dirac gets the sub/sat blend correct (which to be honest I haven't had a problem with so far, it's just this whole DLBC thing has got me thinking more )
richardsim7 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1892 of 1916 Old 05-06-2020, 10:37 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
AdamAttewell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 1,137
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 869 Post(s)
Liked: 221
AdamAttewell is offline  
post #1893 of 1916 Old 05-06-2020, 10:39 AM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
sdurani's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Whittier, CA
Posts: 28,756
Mentioned: 248 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7763 Post(s)
Liked: 6926
Quote:
Originally Posted by richardsim7 View Post
Well from my limited use, I could click and drag the crossover line in DLBC and set it wherever I wanted
If it allows you to set the crossover, then it has changed from what the Dirac rep told me a couple months ago.
richardsim7 likes this.

Sanjay
sdurani is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1894 of 1916 Old 05-06-2020, 11:44 AM
Member
 
FeathersMcGraw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 49
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)
Liked: 24
I find it usefull to place Dirac implementations into two separate camps.

But first a disclaimer. I am barely even a Dirac Live neophyte. My only
experience with Dirac Live is with the impelentation provided by the
miniDSP SHD. Also some experience with Audyssey and YPAO, though
perhaps not applicable.

The two camps are:

Camp 1: Implementations like my miniDSP SHD where Dirac Live has
no ability to separately measure and individually alter the discrete
output channels. In the miniDSP SHD, for example, the Dirac Live filters
are applied in the stage immediately after the stereo source input selector
switch and before the matrix mixer and the inidividual channel filters
further down the signal path. See attached image.

Camp 2: Implementations that do inject Dirac Live test signals discretely
one at a time into each of the output channels, including subwoofer channels.
I get the impression from casual reading elsewhere that some of the more
advanced AVR/AVP's built around Dirac can do this.

In camp 1, Dirac has no specific knowledge of the capabilities or settings
inherint with the matrix mixer or dicrete output filter channels. Though, if
the Dirac Live measurements are performed after having deliberately
adjusted the matrix mixer and output filter channel settings, then those
Dirac measurements will be inclusive of their affect on the resultant
measured room response. Basically, the matrix mixer and discrete output
channel filters are a black box to Dirac Live. In camp 1, the Dirac Live
filters do still apply to the full freqency spectrum, including frequencies
down low.

In my miniDSP SHD, Dirac Live may potentially add a small amout of delay
to either the left or right stereo signal. In my circumstance, I do worry
about Dirac adding more than just a little delay to either the left or right
channel. This, because if a lot of delay, it may compromise the accuracy of
the resultant room response predicted by MSO.

For this reason and others, I make certain that the left and right speakers
are equidistant from what I regard (and use during measurement) as the
main listening position (MLP). I also inspect the result after having applied
the Dirac filters to make certain that the delays it introduces are tiny or
nonexistent. I don't want the Dirac Live filters to invalidate the time
alignment carefully crafted with the help of MSO.

In camp 1, I consider MSO and Dirac to be complimentary. For equipment
in camp 2, I concede that Dirac Live Bass Management and MSO may be
competitive. This is why I think it is important to frame the context of any
discussion comparing/contrasting Dirac and MSO.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	miniDSP_SHD_signal_path.jpg
Views:	44
Size:	128.4 KB
ID:	2722122  
FeathersMcGraw is offline  
post #1895 of 1916 Old 05-10-2020, 11:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
shepP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 945
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be such a product by miniDSP.



There might be some high-end professional measurement hardware/software combination that does this, but that's above my pay grade.



The "HD" designation of the newer 4x10 and 10x10 versions is not at all similar to the 2x4 HD vs. non-HD versions. The 2x4 HD has floating-point DSP, which gives superior low-frequency accuracy to the fixed-point 2x4 non-HD versions. The 4x10 and 10x10 HD have fixed-point processing and as such share more in common with the non-HD 2x4 versions than with the 2x4 HD. Scroll down this page to see the large low-frequency errors in filter response of the 4x10 HD, especially with the 96kHz plugin.

I wish I had read this before I ordered the 4x10HD. Since minidsp won't accept returns I'm stuck with it. Is their any way it can be made to work?
shepP is offline  
post #1896 of 1916 Old 05-10-2020, 02:38 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by shepP View Post
I wish I had read this before I ordered the 4x10HD. Since minidsp won't accept returns I'm stuck with it. Is their any way it can be made to work?
I think you can use the 10x10 plug-in, which runs at 48 kHz rather than 96 kHz. At least, that's what the "title" tag on that web page says ("miniDSP 2x8/8x8/4x10/10x10 Platforms : 10x10 plug-in"), even though the page contents are somewhat unclear on that point. With that plug-in, it's no worse for accuracy of very low-frequency filters than the 2x4 non-HD versions.
shepP likes this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1897 of 1916 Old 05-17-2020, 02:32 AM
Senior Member
 
steakhouse_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Liked: 197
I have one little question. I have 3 subs (two on the front and one left rear behind my sofa) and did MSO quite sucessfully. Their summed response (per MSO and measured by REW) is nearly perfect. However, I have one problem. I cannot get them to blend with my mains no matter what delay setting I use. The difference in phase is just to large and fuzzy within the x-over region.

The results below were actually the best I could achieve after trying several delays. I am using a DDRC88-BM with a 5.1 setup where 3 channels are used for the subs. I have to mention that the sub left behind my sofa is a different one with a different roll of at the higher frequencies. The subs in frnt of me are a bit older with a non defeatable LPF ant 125Hz, the sub behind me is an Arendal Sub 1v. MSO did actually get a quite good result anyway but could this be a potential problem with integrating them with the mains? If so I would exchang my older subs with another 2 Arendal Sub 1v.


Many thanks in advance and many thanks to andyc for this great tool.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Subs.jpg
Views:	54
Size:	84.6 KB
ID:	2727578   Click image for larger version

Name:	Mains.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	86.5 KB
ID:	2727580   Click image for larger version

Name:	Both.jpg
Views:	53
Size:	81.3 KB
ID:	2727582  

Last edited by steakhouse_; 05-17-2020 at 04:45 AM.
steakhouse_ is offline  
post #1898 of 1916 Old 05-17-2020, 08:19 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by steakhouse_ View Post
I have one little question. I have 3 subs (two on the front and one left rear behind my sofa) and did MSO quite sucessfully. Their summed response (per MSO and measured by REW) is nearly perfect. However, I have one problem. I cannot get them to blend with my mains no matter what delay setting I use. The difference in phase is just to large and fuzzy within the x-over region.

The results below were actually the best I could achieve after trying several delays. I am using a DDRC88-BM with a 5.1 setup where 3 channels are used for the subs. I have to mention that the sub left behind my sofa is a different one with a different roll of at the higher frequencies. The subs in frnt of me are a bit older with a non defeatable LPF ant 125Hz, the sub behind me is an Arendal Sub 1v. MSO did actually get a quite good result anyway but could this be a potential problem with integrating them with the mains? If so I would exchang my older subs with another 2 Arendal Sub 1v.
I'm not sure what you've tried so far with MSO, but is it fair to say you began with a sub-only configuration, measured with the DDRC88-BM crossover disabled, and were able to optimize it successfully, then went with a subs+mains configuration and are now having trouble? If this is so, then you've probably added a shared delay block for the sub channels. One thing you may need to do is adjust the limits of this shared delay block to allow negative delays. For typical AVRs, a negative shared sub delay in MSO corresponds to increasing the sub distance relative to what it was during the measurement. I'm not familiar with the details of the DDRC88-BM, but with some hardware that doesn't fit the pattern I just described, it means that if a negative sub delay is required, say -10 msec, then you would actually have zero shared sub delay, and add 10 msec delay to all your satellites. AVRs do something like this internally when altering the sub distance.

Another thing to consider is if your hardware provides both 2nd-order and 4th-order Linkwitz-Riley crossover options, which I think the DDRC88-BM does. The 2nd-order LR crossovers require the sub channels to be inverted relative to the satellites, while the 4th-order ones do not (assuming in-phase behavior of satellites and subs in the absence of the LR filters). I'd recommend the 4th-order ones. But even still, a shared inverter on the subs might be an option. "Clone Configuration" in MSO can be helpful in such situations. Cloning duplicates an existing configuration along with its graphs., and allows you to preserve the various options you've tried out (e.g. subs inverted and not).

In any case, after doing the sub-only configuration, you'll want to lock all sub filter parameters so MSO doesn't have to start from scratch in the new subs+mains configuration. You can use your originally measured data taken with the crossover disabled, then add the crossover LPF and HPF in MSO with cutoff frequencies all locked to the crossover frequency you want to use. You don't have to measure again with the crossover filters in place (Edit: except to verify the results after optimization).
giomania likes this.

Last edited by andyc56; 05-17-2020 at 08:40 AM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1899 of 1916 Old 05-17-2020, 09:02 AM
Senior Member
 
steakhouse_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Hello Andyc,

yes I started with the sub only config like you said. However I did not measure the mains since I thought I would figure out the delays and everything would fall in the right place. I use LR4 on both sides, so that should be OK. I also tried delays on the mains (plus delays on the sub channel) but it did not really work out. Maybe the root cause of my problem is that the new sub (the arendal behind my sofa) has a different HP behavious since it can be disabled where it cannot on my front subs (it maxes out at 125Hz and the sub is already 6 db down at that point according to the manual. I can also see this when I look at my measurements for MSO. Maybe I should try to apply the same HP to the Arendal sub so that it behaves the same way.

I also have to mention that I use dirac. I ran MSO to optimize the 3 subs and then ran dirac for the whole system.
steakhouse_ is offline  
post #1900 of 1916 Old 05-17-2020, 09:52 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Oh, I missed the "non-defeatable LPF at 125Hz" part. Rats. That does make things more difficult. In fact, it's a bit difficult to see how you got the subs to integrate well with one another in the sub-only config when some subs have this LPF and the others not. One workaround might be to have the crossover LPF on the subs be 2nd-order with a 4th-order HPF on the satellites - though this is getting pretty klugey. If the existing non-defeatable LPF on your subs is 2nd-order, that would give a combined 4th-order response of the sub LPF. But that's only for some subs and not others.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1901 of 1916 Old 05-17-2020, 10:08 AM
Senior Member
 
steakhouse_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Actually that did work quite well. But maybe the problem is, that in this case the response above 120Hz is mainly driven by the arendal sub and that the phase of the whole sub arry may be quite messy because of the different slopes. From a frequency perspective it looks that it could be easily crossed over at 80Hz but when phase comes in play it does not work.
Maybe I redo my meaurements and apply a 4th order LPF at the arendal sub since I think the non defeatable LPF of the other subs is 4th order (according to one test in a magazine and because it is already 6 db down at 125Hz). So then the subs should behave the same.

At the end of the day I will change the two front subs to have that problem solved. I just want to explore that it is worth it and I can actually get the x-over problem solved.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	MSO.png
Views:	28
Size:	48.6 KB
ID:	2727988  

Last edited by steakhouse_; 05-17-2020 at 10:16 AM.
steakhouse_ is offline  
post #1902 of 1916 Old 05-18-2020, 08:58 AM
Senior Member
 
steakhouse_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Hallo andy,

one last thing, before I eventually will measure it all again.

I attached the phase response of my optimized sub (red) the unoptimized sub as I use it now (orange) and of my mains (green). As you can see the orange and green curve look like somewhat in phase around 80Hz. The red curve looks all over the place and is out of phase with my mains (red). Is this because my new sub has a different HPF slope?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	phase.png
Views:	47
Size:	99.5 KB
ID:	2728458  
steakhouse_ is offline  
post #1903 of 1916 Old 05-18-2020, 07:04 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by steakhouse_ View Post
I attached the phase response of my optimized sub (red) the unoptimized sub as I use it now (orange) and of my mains (green). As you can see the orange and green curve look like somewhat in phase around 80Hz. The red curve looks all over the place and is out of phase with my mains (red). Is this because my new sub has a different HPF slope?
The question of why something is occurring usually can't be answered by looking at a graph, especially not an illegible one. That question usually has to be answered by a sequence of experiments. If you want to do a phase comparison between combined subs and satellites, you should unwrap the phase in the graphs. Sometimes you'll also need to add a phase offset of some (positive or negative) integer multiple of 360 degrees to get the matching as close as possible at the anticipated crossover frequency. In MSO, phase unwrapping is done in Graph Properties, Format, All Traces, Phase Unwrapping, Always unwrap. Phase offsets are done in the graph's trace menu - Trace Properties, Individual Traces, [choose trace], Phase display offset, deg. Phase unwrapping and offset can (and should) also be done in REW for such comparisons.
dgage likes this.

Last edited by andyc56; 05-18-2020 at 07:27 PM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1904 of 1916 Old 05-18-2020, 11:58 PM
Senior Member
 
steakhouse_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Hello andy,

thanks for the answer. I just did that in REW. The phase response of the unwrapped pahse of my mains looks quite odd to me. I had to shift the phase by multiplying it 3*360 to match it to the subs phase response. BTW, I found out that my mains (Neumann KH 420) have a 3rd Order LPF at 9Hz (infrasonic filter) that adds to the port tuning at 26Hz with 4th order.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Subs.png
Views:	41
Size:	112.4 KB
ID:	2728992   Click image for larger version

Name:	Mains.png
Views:	39
Size:	121.2 KB
ID:	2728994   Click image for larger version

Name:	Both.png
Views:	38
Size:	88.8 KB
ID:	2728996  

Last edited by steakhouse_; 05-19-2020 at 12:12 AM.
steakhouse_ is offline  
post #1905 of 1916 Old 05-19-2020, 12:47 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by steakhouse_ View Post
Hello andy,

thanks for the answer. I just did that in REW. The phase response of the unwrapped pahse of my mains looks quite odd to me. I had to shift the phase by multiplying it 3*360 to match it to the subs phase response. BTW, I found out that my mains (Neumann KH 420) have a 3rd Order LPF at 9Hz (infrasonic filter) that adds to the port tuning at 26Hz with 4th order.
You appear to have the concepts of LPF and HPF reversed. Please stop, because repeated misuse of these terms misinforms readers.

LPF = low-pass filter
Low-pass = passes low frequencies, cuts highs

HPF = high-pass filter
High-pass = passes high frequencies, cuts lows

Sometimes subs have an HPF, but this is usually for ported subs, and the HPF is around the box tuning frequency. Even having to talk about such things means you're in the wrong place. I don't have the patience to deal with such matters.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1906 of 1916 Old 05-19-2020, 01:01 AM
Senior Member
 
steakhouse_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 492
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 343 Post(s)
Liked: 197
Yes, sorry I know the concept but I confused it. It is quite stressful at the moment here so I got that wrong. Thanks anyway.
steakhouse_ is offline  
post #1907 of 1916 Old 05-20-2020, 04:07 AM
Member
 
chevman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 111
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 65 Post(s)
Liked: 68
Just curious if there are plans to make this Mac friendly? It appears it is for Windows only.
arsMatrix likes this.

Video: 65" Sony 900X XBR; Sony X800M2 Blue Ray; OTA Tivo Roamio; Apple TV 4K
Audio Electronics: Rotel Pre-amp RSP-1066, RMB-1075 120x5 Amp; Schiit Modi 2 Uber DAC; Denon 2930CI DVD; MiniDSP DDRC-88A/BM
Speakers: Klipsch Forte III, CDT-5800 II (Surround); B&K Sounds CSC-1 (Center); Dual SVS SB 3000's
chevman is offline  
post #1908 of 1916 Old 05-20-2020, 05:04 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
richardsim7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,474
Mentioned: 43 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked: 2204
Quote:
Originally Posted by chevman View Post
Just curious if there are plans to make this Mac friendly? It appears it is for Windows only.

nope - could run it in Parallels
richardsim7 is offline  
post #1909 of 1916 Old 05-22-2020, 03:02 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
"Normalize delays" is [...] only enabled when there's N-1 delays for N subs with a sub-only configuration. I believe this is because, with N-1 delays, you can always just move the existing delay blocks around, changing their values as necessary to normalize out negative delays. But with fewer delay blocks than that (you'd have N-2), you might in some cases have to create new delay blocks for the normalization to work. Maybe that's too restrictive, and adding delay blocks automatically in the "normalize delays" command should be allowed. I'll look into that.

Example:
4 subs, with two channels (say channels 1 and 2) each having no delay
Channel 3: delay = t3
Channel 4: delay = t4

Suppose that after optimization, t3 is positive and t4 is negative. New delays:
Channel 1: delay = -t4
Channel 2: delay = -t4
Channel 3: delay = t3 - t4
Channel 4: no delay

Now there are 3 delay blocks where there once were 2, and relative delays are preserved.
There is a new version, 1.41, that addresses this issue. Here are the changes:
  • Modified Normalize Gains, Normalize Delays, Rearrange Gains and Rearrange Delays commands so they add delay or gain blocks when necessary. This means these commands can be enabled in their respective context menus under a much broader set of circumstances than before.
  • Normalize Gains and Normalize Delays now internally do a "rearrange" operation when needed, making Rearrange Gains and Rearrange Delays needed much less often than before.
  • Added new options in the Application Options dialog to allow disabling some prompts that occur when MSO needs to add gain or delay blocks in a normalize/rearrange operation. See the "Tips and Tricks" section for details.
  • Changed the license to one that allows commercial use.
sdurani, giomania, tjambro and 2 others like this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1910 of 1916 Old 05-25-2020, 06:16 PM
Member
 
WingmanHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 15
MSO 1.41 Filter Stacking vs Previous MSO 1.40

Hello Andy
I have a 4 Subwoofer config (Sub-only) that I had optimized with MSO 1.40 and the results were very good. Today I updated to MSO1.41 and re-ran the same configuration, the results changed, Chan 2 is now stacking filters, the other 3 channel are virtually the same(no stacking). I have Constraints specified in the Optimization Options and all parameter were unchanged in both Optimizations

I thought this was odd. Perhaps a bug, maybe you can take a look at it.

Attached are the Filter Graphs and the MSO 1.40 & 1.41 projects, thanks again for your support and a gem of a Program.

Regards, Tim
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	8HDAP6n Filter opted with MSO 1.40.png
Views:	37
Size:	26.5 KB
ID:	2732494   Click image for larger version

Name:	8HDAP6n Filter opted with MSO 1.41.png
Views:	35
Size:	26.6 KB
ID:	2732496  
Attached Files
File Type: zip MS0 1.40 & MSO 1.41 Project.zip (266.0 KB, 2 views)
andyc56 likes this.
WingmanHD is offline  
post #1911 of 1916 Old 05-25-2020, 08:03 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingmanHD View Post
Hello Andy
I have a 4 Subwoofer config (Sub-only) that I had optimized with MSO 1.40 and the results were very good. Today I updated to MSO1.41 and re-ran the same configuration, the results changed, Chan 2 is now stacking filters, the other 3 channel are virtually the same(no stacking). I have Constraints specified in the Optimization Options and all parameter were unchanged in both Optimizations

I thought this was odd. Perhaps a bug, maybe you can take a look at it.
I suspect it might be. I did some refactoring of the optimization code, and this could be a regression due to that change. I'll have a look tomorrow, and get a fix out if I find something.
richardsim7 likes this.

Last edited by andyc56; 05-25-2020 at 08:20 PM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1912 of 1916 Old 05-26-2020, 04:09 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I suspect it might be. I did some refactoring of the optimization code, and this could be a regression due to that change. I'll have a look tomorrow, and get a fix out if I find something.
I've taken down 1.41, so for the time being, if you download MSO, you'll get 1.40. I'll have a fix up later today.
tjambro and richardsim7 like this.

Last edited by andyc56; 05-26-2020 at 04:43 AM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1913 of 1916 Old 05-26-2020, 05:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
It's fixed now. Version 1.42 is now up.
sdurani, giomania, pepar and 2 others like this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #1914 of 1916 Old 05-26-2020, 11:32 AM
Member
 
WingmanHD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
It's fixed now. Version 1.42 is now up.
Thanks Andyc56, I verified 1.42 resolved the issue.

Tim
andyc56 likes this.
WingmanHD is offline  
post #1915 of 1916 Old 05-26-2020, 02:46 PM
AVS Forum Club Gold
 
giomania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,195
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 865 Post(s)
Liked: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
It's fixed now. Version 1.42 is now up.


Is there any need to rerun optimizations with the newer version if we have a good response already?

Thanks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Lumagen Radiance Pro HDR Tone Mapping Guide: Click Here

Lumagen Radiance Pro Setup & Calibration Tips: Click Here

UHD-BD Backup & Playback Guidance Link
giomania is offline  
post #1916 of 1916 Old 05-26-2020, 04:09 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,623
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by giomania View Post
Is there any need to rerun optimizations with the newer version if we have a good response already?
I'd say that:
  • If you ran your previous optimization using version 1.41
  • and you specified maximum total PEQ boost or cut limits in Optimization Options, Constraints
  • and you checked whether these limits were actually exceeded by plotting the individual sub channel responses
  • and you don't wish for those limits to have been exceeded

then you should re-run the optimization. If any one of these statements is false, then there's no reason to re-run it.
andyc56 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